Act, Declaration, & Testimony for the Whole of our Covenanted Reformation, as Attained to, and Established in Britain and Ireland; Particularly Betwixt the Years 1638 and 1649, Inclusive by The Reformed Presbytery

3. The presbytery do hereby heartily approve and homologate thetestimony borne unto the truths and royal prerogatives of Christ, asKing of Zion, by the witnesses and martyrs for the same, from therestoration, _anno_ 1660, to the late revolution, by protestations,declarations, confiscation of goods, bonds, imprisonment, banishment,all kinds of cruelty and suffering, even unto the death (as noticedabove), by the impious revolters from the righteous laws of God, andoverturners of the just and equitable laws of men, both sacred andcivil; to the maintenance whereof, the greatest part of thesetransgressors had bound themselves by the most sacred and inviolableobligations, which made their wickedness the more daring and aggravated,and the testimony of the saints against such as had made themselves sovile in the sight of God and all good men, the more justifiable. _Psalm_cxix, 139: "My zeal hath consumed me, because mine enemies haveforgotten thy words." And as the doers of the law have the promise ofjustification by the great Legislator, _Rom._ ii, 13, so they ought tohave the approbation of his people for doing his will.

And as the Spirit discovers the church's duty not to consist only inbearing witness unto the truth, and justifying Christ's confessors andmartyrs, in their faithful adherence unto it, but also in testifyingagainst sin, and condemning the wicked for their wickedness; for which,also, we have the precedent of the reformed and covenanted church of_Scotland_, both before and during the defection and wickedness of theforementioned period. Likeas, the presbytery did, and hereby do declareand testify particularly:

1. Against that prime and leading step of defection, the publicresolutions, a scheme projected by that arch hypocrite and traitor toGod, Charles II, for the reintroduction of men of the same wicked andmalignant spirit with himself, into places of public trust in thenation--men, the most of whom had been formerly excommunicated by thechurch, and excluded from all office-bearing in the commonwealth, by thestates, in their act of classes, as being avowed and obstinate enemiesto God and to their country. Which scheme, approven of and put inexecution, with the consent of a corrupt part of the ministry of thechurch, called afterward resolutioners, made way for that sad and bloodycatastrophe, which after befel the poor church of Christ in this land.

2. They declare and testify against the usurpation of _Oliver Cromwell_,with those who subjected themselves unto, and owned, his authority;against his treacherous invasion of this land, contrary to the publicoaths and vows, and covenant union of the nations; together with hissectarian principles, and wicked toleration, then obtruded upon them.

3. They declare and testify against the restoration of _Charles_ II,1660, unto the government of these covenanted lands, after he had soplainly discovered his spirit and designs, in the matter of the publicresolutions. On account of which treacherous and double dealing with Godand man, he was, in the Lord's holy and adorable providence, justlysecluded from the government, and lived an exile for the space of tenyears; but, by means of his malignant public resolution friends, he wasagain, by might, though not of right, restored, without so much as hisadherence sought to those oaths, which he had formerly so solemnlysworn. Add to this the church's sinful silence, through the influence ofthe backslidden resolution party therein, so that, at the convention ofthe pretended parliament, _anno_ 1661, consisting mostly of persons ofknown disaffection to the true religion, elected of purpose to serve theking's traitorous designs, there was not so much as a protestation forcivil or religious liberties and privileges offered thereunto; but thevile person (as be afterward fully declared himself) was peaceably,though illegally, exalted.

4. As the presbytery find themselves in duty bound to testify againstthis most unhappy restoration of _Charles_ II, so, of necessary and justconsequence, they declare against the whole of his usurped andtyrannical administration--particularly against his blasphemous andheaven-daring ecclesiastical supremacy; against the act rescissory,declaring null and void the covenants, presbyterian church government,and all the laws made in favor of the true religion since the year 1638;the wicked anniversary thanksgiving day, in memory of the restoration;the re-establishment of diocesan and Erastian Prelacy; his publicly andignominiously burning of our solemn covenants, after pretending tonullify their obligation; with all his cruelty, tyranny, oppression andbloodshed, under color, and without form, of law, exercised upon theLord's people, during the whole of his reign.

5. They again testify against the treachery of these covenanted lands,in their advancing (contrary to our solemn covenants and all law andreason) _James_, duke of _York_, a professed Papist, and avowedmalignant to the throne of these realms. As also, they testify againsthis Christ-dethroning supremacy, and anti-christian indulgences andtoleration, flowing from that wicked fountain; his horrid and cruelmassacreing and murdering of the saints and servants of the Most High;with all his other wickedness briefly specified in the foregoingnarrative.

Upon the whole, the presbytery declare and testify against all theaffronts done unto the Son of God, and open attacks made upon his crownand kingdom; all the different steps of apostasy from a work ofreformation, and all the hellish rage and cruelty exercised against thepeople of God during the foresaid period of persecution, carried on bythese two impious brothers.

PART II.

Containing the grounds of the Presbytery's testimony against theconstitutions both civil and ecclesiastical at the late Revolution, anno1689: as also, against the gross Erastianism and tyranny that hasattended the administration both of church and state, since thatmemorable period: with various instances thereof, &c.

After the Lord, for the forementioned space of twenty-eight years, had,because of their manifold sins, sorely plagued this church and nationwith the grievous yoke of prelatical tyranny, bloodshed, oppression andfiery persecution, and thereby had covered the daughter of Zion with acloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beautyof Israel, and had thrown down in his wrath the strong holds of thedaughter of Judah, yea, brought them down even to the ground; he waspleased, in his holy sovereignty, to put a stop to that barbarouscruelty that was exercised upon his people, at the last nationalRevolution, by the instrumentality of the prince and princess of_Orange_; which is the more remarkable, in that those whom the Lordemployed as the rod of his anger, to strike off that monstrous tyrant_James_ duke of _York_ from the _British_ throne, were natural branchessprung up from the same stock: and this at a juncture when not only thechurch of Christ was in the greatest danger of being totally extirpated,but the whole land in hazard of being again overwhelmed with popishdarkness and idolatry. But although a very fit opportunity was thenoffered the nations for reviving the long buried work of a covenantedreformation both in church and state, and re-establishing all theordinances of God in purity, according to their scriptural institution:yet, alas! how deeply is it to be lamented, that, instead thereof, themultitude of his tender mercies being forgotten, there was a returning,but not to the Most High; yea, a turning aside like a deceitful bow; sothat, in many respects, our national guilt is now increased above whatit was in former times: wherefore, as the presbytery desire with theutmost gratitude to acknowledge the divine goodness, in giving a respitefrom the hot furnace of persecution; so they likewise find themselves,in duty to their princely Master and his people, obliged to testify anddeclare against foresaid revolution settlement, in a variety ofparticulars, with the many defections and backslidings flowingtherefrom. Likeas they hereby do testify against the constitutions, bothcivil and ecclesiastic, at the Revolution, _anno_ 1689, in thoserespects, and for these reasons:

1. Because that in the civil constitution, these nations once unitedtogether in a scriptural and covenanted uniformity, unmindful of theirformer establishment upon a divine footing, wherein king and people wereto be of one perfect religion, and the supreme magistrate obliged bysolemn oath to maintain and preserve the same inviolable, did call andinvite _William_ and _Mary_, prince and princess of _Orange_, unto thepossession of the royal power in these lands, in a way contrary to theword of God, as _Deut._ xvii, 15: "Thou shalt in any wise set him kingover thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thybrethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a strangerover thee, which is not thy brother." _2 Sam._ xxiii, 3: "The God ofIsrael said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men,must be just, ruling in the fear of God."

In opposition to these clear precepts, the nations did choose theforesaid persons to sway the civil scepter over them, who were neitherbrethren by birth, nor religious profession, being educated in a churchwhere Erastianism prevails, as appears from their ascribing such anextensive power to the civil magistrate, as is inconsistent with theintrinsic power of the church. Accordingly, by these principles, saidprince of _Orange_ did regulate his conduct, in the assumption of hisregal authority, consenting to swear two distinct oaths, whereby heobliged himself to preserve and maintain the two distinct and contraryreligions (or modes of religions worship), Presbytery and Prelacy, andso betrayed both to God and man his politic, worldly views, andproclaimed himself destitute of that truth and religious fear, which isthe essential character of every person who may warrantably be investedwith supreme authority over the Israel of God. And as they wantedscriptural, so likewise covenant qualifications, namely, knownintegrity, approven fidelity, constant affection, and zeal to the causeand true church of God; and therefore could not in a consistency withthe covenanted constitution, and fundamental laws of the crown, be setup as king and queen of these covenanted lands.

Again, as during the persecuting period the nations generally wereinvolved in the guilt of perjury and deep apostasy, by the many sinfulcontradictory tests, oaths and bonds then imposed; so, in a particularmanner, those who, by virtue of their birth and dignity, ought to havebeen the defenders of the nation's privileges, both sacred and civil, onthe contrary, as privy councilors to the two impious brothers in theirrage against the Lord and his Anointed, and as members of theiriniquitous parliaments (where perverting equity and justice, they framedthe most heaven-daring and abominable mischiefs into a law, and thenwith the utmost cruelty prosecuted the same), had many of them broughtthemselves under the fearful guilt of these atrocious crimes of murder,perjury, tyranny and oppression, and thereby, according to the law bothof God and man, not only forfeited their lives, had the same been dulyexecuted; but also divested themselves of all just right and title toact the part of the nations' representatives, in choosing and installingany in the office of supreme civil governor, until at least they hadgiven suitable evidence of their repentance. Yet such were theconstituent members of that committee of estates, and first parliament,employed in the Revolution settlement, without so much as making anysuitable public acknowledgment of their wickedness in the active handthe generality of them had in the former bloody persecution, as appearsfrom a comparative view of the lists of the members of parliament, andparticularly the duke of _York's_ last parliament, with act second ofthe acts and orders of the meeting of estates, _anno_ 1689. Yea, byviewing the lists of _James_ VII, his privy council, annexed by _Wodrow_to the second volume of his history, it is evident, that a great numberof the nobility alone, members of that bloody council, were also membersof foresaid convention of estates, the members of which convention(seven bishops excepted) were exactly the same with the members of thefirst parliament at the Revolution. For this, compare second act of themeeting of estates, with act first, parliament first, of _William_ and_Mary_. By all which it is evident, that from princes who had thusremoved the bound, and discovered no just remorse for their sins, therewas little ground left to expect a happy establishment of religion, inrestoring the flock of Christ to the full possession of those valuableprivileges and liberties wherewith he had made them free.

The character of the constituent members being considered, theconstitution itself, and wherein it is inconsistent with our covenantedestablishment, and is therefore hereby testified against, comes next tobe considered. Although the declaration of the meeting of estates inthis kingdom, containing their claim of right, comprehended much more oftheir civil liberties, and formal rights of government, than was enjoyedunder the former monstrous tyranny, yet by no means sufficientlyprovided for the legal establishment of our former happy reformedconstitution, which necessarily obliged the civil rulers to employ theirpower to maintain and defend, not only the doctrine, but also thePresbyterian worship, discipline and government, as the only andunalterable form instituted by Christ in his house. Whereas this cravesthe abolition of prelacy, and the superiority of any office in thechurch above presbyters in _Scotland_, simply as it hath been a greatand insupportable grievance and trouble to this nation, and contrary tothe inclinations of the generality of the people ever since thereformation from Popery, without regarding the divine right ofPresbytery, and the contrariety of Prelacy to scripture revelation. Inagreeableness to which demand, when the first parliament met in_Scotland_ immediately after the Revolution, which began the ____ day of_April_, 1689, in _Act_ 3d, _Sess._ 1st, entitled _Act abolishingPrelacy_, they abolished Prelacy for the foresaid reason, and furtherdeclare, that they will settle by law that church government in thiskingdom, which is most agreeable to the inclinations of the people.Accordingly, in the second session of the same parliament, _Act_ 5th,_June_ 7th, 1690, the parliament establishing the Presbyterian churchgovernment and discipline, as it had been ratified and established bythe 14th _Act, James_ VI, _Parl._ 12th, _anno_ 1592, reviving, renewingand confirming the foresaid act of parliament, in the whole headsthereof, except that part of it relating to patronages, afterward to beconsidered of. Likewise, in the above mentioned act at the Revolution,the thirty-three chapters of the _Westminster_ Confession of Faith(exclusive of the catechisms, directory for worship, and form of churchgovernment formerly publicly authorized, and Covenants National andSolemn League) were ratified and established by the parliament. And thesaid Confession being read in their presence, was voted and approven bythem, as the public and avowed Confession of this church, without takingany notice of its scriptural authority. And further, in the same sessionof parliament, by the royal power allenarly, the first meeting of thegeneral assembly of this church, as above established, was appointed tobe held at _Edinburgh_, the third _Thursday_ of _October_ following, thesame year, 1690. And by the same civil authority and foresaid act, manyof the churches in _Scotland_ were declared vacant.

2. The presbytery testify against the ecclesiastical constitution at theRevolution; particularly, in regard, 1st--That the members composing thesame were no less, if not much more exceptionable, than those of whomthe state consisted; the whole of them one way or other being justlychargeable with unfaithfulness to CHRIST, and his covenanted cause, bysinful and scandalous compliance with the public defections of theformer times, or actively countenancing the malignant apostasy of thelands, which will appear evident, by considering, that the RevolutionChurch consisted of such office-bearers, as had, in contradiction totheir most solemn covenant engagements, fallen in with, and approven ofthe public resolutions. And these public resolutioners, who had betrayedthe LORD'S cause, which they had in the most solemn manner sworn tomaintain, were, without any public acknowledgement demanded or offered,or adequate censure inflicted (even, after that the LORD had remarkablytestified his displeasure against that leading step of defection, bysuffering these vipers, which we thus took into our bosom, to sting usalmost to death) for this their scandalous defection and perjury,admitted and sustained members of the Revolution Church. Again, theRevolution assembly consisted of such ministers as had shamefullychanged their holding of CHRIST, and sinfully submitted, in the exerciseof their ministry, to an exotic head, _Charles_ II, who had, by virtueof his blasphemous supremacy, and absolute power, taken the power of thekeys from Christ's ministers, and afterward returning only one of them(viz.: the key of doctrine) to such as accepted his anti-christian,church-destroying, and Christ-dethroning indulgences, attended with suchsinful limitations and restrictions, as were utterly inconsistent withministerial freedom and faithfulness, declaring the acceptors to bemen-pleasers, and so not the servants of Christ (of which above). Ofthis stamp were the most of them, who, without any public acknowledgmentof that horrid affront they had put upon the church's true Head, daredto constitute and act as the supreme judicatory of the church of Christ,_anno_ 1690. Again, the foresaid assembly was almost wholly formed ofsuch as had petitioned for, accepted of, and pretended to return aGod-mocking letter of thanks for that blasphemous unbounded toleration,which that popish tyrant, the duke of _York_ (as is noticed formerly),granted, with a special view to reintroduce abjured popery; andtherefore while it extended its protection to every heresy, did excludethe pure preaching of the gospel in the fields; which toleration(according to _Wodrow_) was joyfully embraced by all the Presbyterianministers in Scotland, the honored Mr. Renwick only excepted, whofaithfully protested against the same.

But further, the Revolution assembly did partly consist of such membersas, contrary to our solemn covenants, had their consciences dreadfullypolluted, by consenting unto, subscribing, and swearing some one orother of the sinful wicked oaths, tests and bonds, tyrannically imposedin the persecuting period, or by persuading others to take them, anddeclining to give warning of the danger of them, or by approving thewarrantableness of giving security to the bloody council, not toexercise their ministry, but according to their pleasure. Moreover, theywere all, generally, manifestly guilty of the sin of carrying on andmaintaining schism and defection from the covenanted church of CHRIST in_Scotland_. As also (which from the history of these times is evident),the ruling elders in that assembly, being generally noblemen, gentlemen,and burgesses, were mostly such as had an active hand in the tyranny andpersecution that preceded, and in one respect or other, were stainedwith the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. Thus, that assembly was packedup, chiefly, of such blacked compilers, as, one way or other, weredeeply involved in the apostasy, bloodshed and cruelty of the precedingperiod, yet had not broke off their iniquities, by a public confessionof these crying sins, before that meeting; nor can it be found, that anyadequate censure was inflicted on any of them for the same. Therefore,the presbytery testify against the Revolution church, as consistingmostly of such scandalous schismatical members, as could not, in aconsistency with the scriptural rule, and laudable acts of this reformedchurch, have been admitted to church privileges, far less to bear officein the house of God; until, at least, they had been duly purged fromtheir aggravated scandals, and given evident signs of a real repentance,according to the Word of God, 2 _Chron._ xxx, 3: "For they could notkeep the passover at that time, because the priests had not sanctifiedthemselves sufficiently." And _Ezek._ xliv, 10: "And the Levites thatare gone away far from me, when Israel went astray, which went astrayaway from me after their idols, they shall even bear their iniquity;" v.13: "And they shall not come near unto me, to do the office of a priestunto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things, in the most holyplace; but they shall bear their shame, and their abominations whichthey have committed."

Next, the presbytery declare and testify against the Revolution church,because plainly Erastian, and utterly inconsistent with the covenantedconstitution of the reformed church of _Scotland, anno_ 1648: the truthof which charge will appear obvious, from considering the act ofparliament, on which the civil power settled the constitution of theRevolution church, viz., _Act_ 114, _James_ VI, _Parl._ 12th; where,_inter alia_, it is expressly declared, "That it shall be lawful to thekirk ministers, every year at least, and oftener, _pro re nata_, asoccasion and necessity sall require, to hald and keepe generalassemblies, providing that the king's majesty, or his commissioner withthem, to be appointed be his highness to be present at ilk generalassembly, before the dissolving thereof, nominate and appoynt time andplace, quhen and quhair the next general assemblie sall be halden: andin case neither his majesty nor his said commissioner beis present forthe time, in that town, quhair the said general assemblie beis halden,then, and in that case, it shall be lesum for the said general assemblybe themselves, to nominate and appoint time and place, quhair the nextgeneral assembly of the kirk sall be keeped and halden, as they havebeen in use to do these times by-past." Here, in this act, a manifestinvasion and traitorous attack is made upon the headship and supremacyof Christ, as a Son in, and over his own house. He who is God'sannotated King in Zion, and sits on the throne of his holiness, ishereby robbed of his crown rights; the intrinsic power, the spiritualliberty and freedom, granted by Christ to his church, is encroachedupon. It is a received opinion among all true Presbyterians, that thechurch hath an intrinsic power to meet in the courts of Christ's house,from the lowest to the highest, by virtue of the power committed to herby the Lord Jesus Christ, without dependence on the civil power. This isagreeable to scripture, _Matth._ xvi, 19, and xviii, 18, 19, where theapostles receive the keys immediately from the hands of Christ theirLord and Master. And as one principal part of that trust Christ hascommitted to his church, this has been the constant plea of thereforming and reformed Presbyterian church of _Scotland_. Let us hearwhat that renowned and faithful minister, and venerable confessor forChrist, the Rev. Mr. John Welsh, says to this particular, in his letterto the Countess of _Wigton_ from _Blackness_, 1606, when a prisoner forthis same truth. Having asserted the independence of the church, thespiritual kingdom of Christ, upon any earthly monarch, and her freedomto meet and judge of all her affairs; he adds, "These two points, 1st,that Christ is Head of his church; 2d, that she is free in hergovernment from all other jurisdictions, except Christ's. These twopoints, I say, are the special causes of our imprisonment, being nowconvicted as traitors for maintaining thereof. We have been ever waitingwith joyfulness to give the last testimony of our blood in confirmationthereof, if it should please our God to be so favorable as to honor uswith that dignity. Yea, I do affirm, that these two points abovewritten, and all other things that do belong to Christ's crown, scepterand kingdom, are not subject, nor cannot be, to any other authority, butto his own altogether: so that I would be glad to be offered up as asacrifice for so glorious a truth." So far he. But now this assembly of_treacherous_ men, by settling themselves upon such a constitution haveopenly given up this scriptural truth and Presbyterian principle handeddown to us, sealed with the sufferings and dearest blood of the faithfulConfessors and Martyrs of Christ, and have consented that it is unlawfulfor the office-bearers in the Lord's house to exert their proper powerin calling and appointing general assemblies, however loudly thenecessity of the church may call for them, unless the king authorizetheir diet of meeting, which he may, or may not do, according to hispleasure.

Again, it is evident, that the revolution church is constituted in thesame Erastian manner with the late Prelacy in _Scotland_. For proof ofwhich, observe, that as Prelacy was never ecclesiastically asserted tobe of divine authority, neither has Presbytery, by any explicit andformal act of Assembly, at or since the revolution. As the prelates'high ecclesiastical court was called, adjourned and dissolved, in theking's name, so likewise are the assemblies of the Revolution Church. Asthe Episcopalians owned the king, in the exercise of his Erastiansupremacy over them, so the Revolution Church, instead of opposing, didtake up her standing under the covert of that anti-christian supremacy,and has never since declined the exercise thereof. And, as the civilpower prescribed limits unto, and at pleasure altered, the prelaticchurch, so this church has accepted of a formula, prescribed by thecivil power, requiring that all the ordinances within the same beperformed by the ministers thereof, as they were then allowed them, orshould thereafter be declared by their authority, as _Act_ 23d, _Sess._4th, _Parl._ 1st, 1693, expressly bears. By what is said above, it mayappear, that this church is Erastian in her constitution. But it isfurther to be observed, that the present constitution is no lessinconsistent with the scriptural and covenanted constitution of thechurch of _Scotland_, in regard that the retrograde constitution, towhich the church fled back, and on which she was settled at therevolution, was but an infant state of the church, lately after herfirst reformation from Popery, far inferior to her advanced statebetwixt 1638 and 1649 inclusive. It was before the church had shaken offthe intolerable yokes of Erastian supremacy and patronages; before shehad ecclesiastically asserted, and practically maintained, her spiritualand scriptural claim of right, namely, the divine right of presbytery,and intrinsic power of the church, the two special gems of Christ'scrown, as King on his holy hill of Zion; before the explanation of thenational covenant, as condemning episcopacy, the five articles of_Perth_, the civil power of churchmen; before the Solemn League andCovenant was entered into; before the _Westminster_ Confession of Faith,the Catechisms, larger and shorter, the Directory for worship, Form ofPresbyterian church government and ordination of ministers, werecomposed; and before the acts of church and state, for purgingjudicatories, ecclesiastical and civil, and armies from personsdisaffected to the cause and work of God, were made; and all thesevaluable pieces of reformation ratified with the full and ample sanctionof the supreme civil authority, by the king's majesty and honorableestates of parliament, as parts of the covenanted uniformity inreligion, betwixt the churches of Christ in _Scotland, England_ and_Ireland_. And therefore, this revolution constitution amounts to ashameful disregarding--yea, disclaiming and burying--much (if not all)of the reformation attained to in that memorable period, and is avirtual homologation and allowance of the iniquitous laws at therestoration, _anno_ 1661, condemning our glorious reformation and sacredcovenants as rebellion; and is such an aggravated step of defection andapostasy, as too clearly discovers this church to be fixed upon adifferent footing, and to be called by another name, than the genuineoffspring of the true covenanted church of Christ in _Scotland_.

Besides what has been already noticed, respecting the sinfulness both ofthe members constituent, and the constitutions at the revolution, it isto be further observed, as just matter of lamentation, that, at thisperiod, when such a noble opportunity was offered, no suitable endeavorswere made for reviving the covenanted cause and interest of ourREDEEMER; no care taken that the city of the Lord should be built uponher own heap, and the palace remain after the manner thereof; but, onthe contrary, a religion was then established, not only exceedingly farshort of, but in many particulars very inconsistent with, anddestructive of, that blessed uniformity in religion, once the glory ofthese now degenerate isles. The presbytery, therefore, in the nextplace, do testify against the settlement of religion made at therevolution, and that in these particulars following:

1. Instead of abolishing Prelacy in _England_ and _Ireland_, as it hadbeen abjured in the Solemn League and Covenant, and stands condemned bythe word of God, and fundamental laws of the nations, conform to thedivine law, it was then, with all its popish ceremonies, anew secured,confirmed and established, in both these kingdoms, as the true religion,according to the word of God, to be publicly professed by all thepeople; and the supreme civil magistrate solemnly sworn, at hisinauguration, both that he himself shall be of the Episcopal communion,and that he shall maintain inviolably the settlement of the church of_England_, in the kingdoms of _England_ and _Ireland_, and territoriesthereunto belonging. Thus the revolution has ratified the impiousoverthrow, and ignominious burial, of the covenanted reformation inthese two kingdoms, that was made in the persecuting period, and hasfixed a legal bar in the way of their reformation, in agreeableness tothe sacred oath the three nations brought themselves under to GodAlmighty.

2. As to the settlement of religion in _Scotland_, the presbyterytestify against it: because it was a settlement, which, instead ofhomologating and reviving the covenanted reformation between 1638 and1650, in profession and principle, left the same buried under theinfamous act rescissory, which did, at one blow, rescind and annul thewhole of the reformation, and authority establishing the same, by makinga retrograde motion, as far back as 1592, without ever coming one stepforward since that time, and herein acted most contrary to the practiceof our honored reformers, who always used to begin where formerreformations stopped, and after having removed what obstructed the workof reformation, went forward in building and beautifying the house ofthe Lord.

That this backward settlement at the revolution, was a glaringrelinquishment of many of our valuable and happy attainments, in thesecond and most advanced reformation (as said is), and consequently, anopen apostasy and revolt from the covenanted constitution of the churchof _Scotland_, is sufficiently evident, from the foresaid act ofsettlement 1690; where (after having allowed of the _Westminster_confession) they further add, "That they do establish, ratify andconfirm, the Presbyterian church government and discipline, ratified andestablished by the 114th _Act, James_ VI, _Parl._ 12th, _anno_ 1592." Sothat this settlement includes nothing more of the covenanted uniformityin these lands, than only the thirty-three articles of the Confession ofFaith, wanting the scripture proofs. Again, that the Revolutionsettlement of religion did not abolish the act rescissory, nor ratifyand revive any act, between 1638 and 1650, authorizing and establishingthe work of reformation, is clear from the same act: wherein, afterabolishing some acts anent the late prelacy in _Scotland_, they declare:"that these acts are abolished, so far allenarly, as the said acts, andothers, generally and particularly above mentioned, are contrary orprejudicial to, inconsistent with, or derogatory from, the Protestantreligion, or Presbyterian church government, now established." Whereobserve, that this general clause is restricted to acts and laws, in sofar only, as they were contrary to the religion settled in this act; andtherefore, as this act includes no part of the covenanted reformationbetween 1638 and 1649, so this rescissory clause abolishes laws, not asagainst foresaid reformation, but only in so far as they strike againstthe revolution settlement, which the act rescissory could not do. Again,in another clause of the same act, it is added: "Therefore, theirmajesties do hereby revive and ratify, and perpetually confirm, alllaws, statutes and acts of parliament, made against Popery and Papists."The only reason that can be given for the revival of laws, not againstPrelacy, but Popery, when abolishing Prelacy, is, that the parliament,excluding the covenanted reformation from this settlement of religion,resolved to let the whole of it lie buried under the act rescissory. Foras, in reality, there were no laws made expressly against Prelacy before1592, but against Popery and Papists; so, had they said, laws againstprelacy and prelates, they thereby would have revived some of the lawsmade by the reforming parliaments, between 1640 and 1650; whereinbishops and all other prelates, the civil places and power of kirkmen,&c., are expressly condemned. Again, in the foresaid act, they confirmall the article of the 114th _Act_, 1592, except the part of it anentpatronages, which is to be afterward considered. Now, had the revolutionparliament regarded the reforming laws to have been revived, and so theact rescissory to be rescinded, by their _Act_ 5th, 1690, they would nothave left this particular to be again considered of, seeing patronageswere entirely abolished by an act of parliament 1649; but, having theball at their foot, they now acted as would best suit with theirpolitical and worldly views. Once more observe, that when the revolutionparliament ratified the act 1592, they take no notice of its having beendone before, by a preceding parliament in 1649. All which plainly says,that the reforming laws and authority of the parliaments by which theywere made, are not regarded as now in force. To conclude thisparticular, if the settlement of religion, made in 1690, had revived andratified the authority of our reforming parliaments, and laws made bythem; then, as these obliged the king to swear the covenants before hiscoronation, and all ranks to swear them, and obliged to root outmalignancy, sectarianism, &c., and to promote uniformity in doctrine,worship, discipline and government, in the three nations, so therevolution settlement would have obliged all to the practice of the sameduties, and that, before ever king, or any under him, could have beenadmitted to any trust; while all that would not comply therewith, wouldhave been held as enemies, not only to religion, but to their king andcountry also, as was the case when reformation flourished. But, as thevery reverse of this was authorized and practised at the revolution, itconvincingly discovers, that the settlement of religion, made in 1690,left the whole of the reformation attained to, ratified and establishedby solemn oaths and civil laws between 1640 and 1649, buried under thatscandalous and wicked act rescissory, framed by that tyrant, _Charles_II, after his restoration. Nor is there to be found, in all the acts,petitions, supplications and addresses, made by the assemblies at orsince the revolution, any thing importing a desire to have thatblasphemous act rescinded, which stands in full force, to the perpetualinfamy and disgrace of the revolution settlement of religion, so muchgloried in, by the greatest part, as happily established.

2. The presbytery testify against the Revolution settlement of religion,not only as including avowed apostasy from the covenanted constitutionof the reformed church of _Scotland_, and a traitorous giving up of theinterests and rights of Christ, our Lord and REDEEMER, in these, andespecially in this land; but also, as it is an Erastian settlement,which will appear, by considering 1_st_. The scriptural method thentaken, in establishing religion: instead of setting the church foremostin the work of the Lord, and the state coming after, and ratifying bytheir civil sanction what the church had done; the Revolution parliamentinverted this beautiful order, both in abolishing Prelacy, settlingPresbytery, and ratifying the Confession of Faith, as the standard ofdoctrine to this church; 2_d_, In abolishing Prelacy, as it was not atthe desire of the church, but of the estates of _Scotland_, so theparliament did it in an Erastian manner, without consulting the church,or regarding that it had been abolished by the church, _anno_ 1638, andby the state, 1640, in confirmation of what the church had done. Thus,_Act_ 3d, 1689, 'tis said, "The king and queen's majesties with theestates of parliament, do hereby abolish Prelacy." Again, whenestablishing presbytery, _Act_ 5th, 1690, they act in the same Erastianmanner, whereby the order of the house of God was inverted in the matterof government; in regard that the settlement of the government of thechurch in the first instance, properly belongs to an ecclesiasticaljudicatory, met and constituted in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ;and it is afterward the duty of the state to give the sanction of theirauthority to the same. This Erastianism further appears in theparliament's conduct with respect unto the Confession of Faith: see_Act_ 5th, _Sess._ 2d, _Parl._ 1st, wherein thus they expressthemselves: "Likeas they, by these presents, ratify and establish theConfession of Faith, now read in their presence, and voted and approvenby them, as the public and avowed confession of this church." Hence itis obvious, that the parliament, by sustaining themselves proper judgesof doctrine, encroached upon the intrinsic power of the church: theyread, voted, and approved the Confession of Faith, without everreferring to, or regarding the act of the general assembly 1647, or anyother act of reforming assemblies, whereby that confession was formerlymade ours, or even so much as calling an assembly to vote and approvethat confession of new. That the above conduct of the state, withoutregarding the church in her assemblies, either past or future, is grossErastianism, and what does not belong, at first instance, to the civilmagistrate, but to the church representative, to whom the Lord hascommitted the management of the affairs of his spiritual kingdom, mayappear from these few sacred texts, besides many others, namely, _Numb._i, 50, 51: "But thou shalt appoint the Levites over the tabernacle oftestimony, and over all the vessels thereof, and over all the thingsthat belong to it: they shall bear the tabernacle and all the vesselsthereof, and they shall minister unto it, and shall encamp round aboutthe tabernacle; and when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levitesshall take it down, and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, theLevites shall set it up, and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be putto death." See also chapters iii, and iv, throughout; also _Deut._xxxiii, 8, 10; 1 _Chron._ xv, 2; 2 _Chron._ xix, 11; _Ezra_ x, 4. So_David_, when he had felt the anger of the Lord, for not observing hiscommandments in this particular, says, 1 _Chron._ xv, 12, 13, to the_Levites_, "Sanctify yourselves that ye may bring up the ark of the LordGod of Israel. For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our Godmade a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order."Likewise Hezekiah, a reforming king, did not himself, at first instance,set about reforming and purging the house of God; but having calledtogether the priests and Levites, says to them, 2 _Chron._ xxix, 5:"Sanctify yourselves and sanctify the house of the Lord God of yourfathers, and carry forth the filthiness out of the holy place;" comparedwith _ver._ 11; _Mal._ ii, 7; _Matth._ xvi, 19. "I will give unto theethe keys of the kingdom of heaven." And xxviii, 18, 19, 20: "All poweris given unto me, go ye therefore and teach all nations, teaching themto observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." From all whichit may safely be inferred, that as the Lord Jesus Christ, the King andLawgiver of his church, has committed all the power of church matters,whether respecting the doctrine or government thereof, to churchofficers, as the first, proper receptacles thereof; so, for civilrulers, at first instance, by their own authority, to make alterationsin the government of the church, and to settle and emit a standard ofdoctrine to the church, is a manifest usurpation of ecclesiasticalauthority, and tyrannical encroachment upon the ministerial office. Itneeds only to be added, that this Revolution conduct stands condemned bythe Confession of Faith itself, in express terms (as well as in the holyscriptures), _chap._ xxiii, _sect._ 3, "The civil magistrate may notassume to himself the administration of the word or the keys." And also,by the beautiful practice of our reformers, betwixt 1638 and 1649, whoobserved the scriptural order, the church always going foremost, in allthe several pieces of reformation attained to, and then the state comingafter, by exerting their authority, in ratification and defense of thechurch's acts and deeds, in behalf of reformation.

3. The Erastianism of this settlement of religion, appears plain fromthe act of parliament 1592, noticed above, upon which the Revolutionparliament did found it, as in _Act_ 5th, _Sess._ 2, 1690, by which theforementioned act 1592, is ratified, revived, renewed and confirmed, inall the heads thereof, patronage excepted. Now, in regard that act 1592contains an invasion upon the headship of Christ, and intrinsic power ofthe church, and ascribes an Erastian power to the civil magistrate overthe church, making it unlawful for the church to convocate her superiorjudicatories, but in dependence upon the king for his licence andauthority; and in regard the Revolution parliament did revive and renewthis clause in foresaid act 1592, as well as other heads thereof, itmust needs follow, that this settlement of religion cannot be freed ofthe charge of Erastianism. Nor is it very strange that statesmen, whohad been educated in the principles of Erastianism, should be fond ofreviving an act that robbed Christ of his crown rights, and the churchof her spiritual liberty; but most surprising, that professedPresbyterian ministers should so greedily embrace and approve ofErastianism, as a valuable and glorious deliverance to the church ofChrist! In agreeableness to this Erastian article of the above act theparliament, in their act 1690, indicted and appointed the first generalassembly, as a specimen of their Erastian power over their newlyconstituted church; and it has ever since been the practice of thesovereign, to call, dissolve and adjourn her assemblies at his pleasure,and sometimes to an indefinite time. It is further observable, that theking's commission to his representative in assembly, runs in a stylethat evidently discovers, that he looks upon the assembly's power andright of constitution as subordinate to him. Thus it begins, "_Seeing byour decree that an assembly is to meet_," &c. Yet notwithstanding ofthis, the assembly 1690 (nor any after them, so far as was ever known tothe world) did not by any one formal act and statue expressly condemnErastianism, and explicitly assert the alone headship of Christ, and theintrinsic, independent power of the church, in opposition to theseencroachments made thereupon, and therefore may be justly construedconsenters thereto. To conclude this particular, of the Erastianism ofthe present settlement of religion, it may be observed that although theRevolution parliament, from political views, did by _Act_ 1st, _Sess._2d, rescind the first act of the second parliament of Charles II.entitled _Act asserting his majesty's supremacy over all persons and inall causes ecclesiastical_; yet, from what is above hinted, it may beinferred, that the Revolution state has still preserved the very souland substance of that blasphemous supremacy (though possibly they mayhave transferred it from the person of the king, abstractly considered,and lodged it in the hand of the king and parliament conjunctly, as themore proper subject thereof): for, in the words of Mr. John Burnet, inhis testimony against the indulgence, quoted by Mr. Brown in his historyof the indulgence, "To settle, enact and emit constitutions, acts andorders, concerning matters, meetings and persons ecclesiastical,according to royal pleasure (and parliamentary is much the same), is thevery substance and definition of his majesty's supremacy, as it isexplained by his estates of parliament." But the Revolution act ofparliament settling religion, is just to settle, enact and emit suchconstitutions, acts and orders concerning matters, meetings and personsecclesiastical, according to parliamentary, instead of mere royalpleasure: and therefore the act authorizing the Revolution settlement ofreligion, is the very substance and definition of a royal parliamentarysupremacy. The truth of this will further appear by the sequel.

4. The presbytery testify against the Revolution constitution andsettlement of religion, as it is not a religious, but a mere civil andpolitical one; "not built upon the foundation of the apostles andprophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" but uponthe fluctuating inclinations of the people, as the formal foundationthereof. For proof of which, consider the acts of parliament relative tothe abolition of Prelacy, and the establishment of presbytery. Inconsequence of an article of the claim of right made by the estates ofScotland, the _Act_ 3d, _Sess._ 1st, _Parl._ 1689, declares, "Thatwhereas the estates of this kingdom, in their claim of right, declaredthat Prelacy, and the superiority of any office in the church abovepresbyters, is and hath been a great and insupportable grievance to thisnation, and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the peopleever since the reformation, they having been reformed from Popery bypresbyters, and therefore to be abolished: our sovereign lord and lady,with advice and consent of the estates of parliament, do hereby abolishPrelacy, and all superiority of any office in the church in this kingdomabove presbyters; and do declare, that they, with advice aforesaid, willsettle by law that church government in this kingdom, which is mostagreeable to the inclinations of the people." Agreeable to this, one ofking William's instructions to the parliament 1690, is, "You are to passan act establishing that church government which is most agreeable tothe inclinations of the people." Accordingly we have the _Act_ 5th,_Sess._ 2d, 1690, settling Presbyterian church-government in the sameform, and on the same footing. And so much king William, who, doubtless,was perfectly acquainted with the true intent and meaning of that act,declares in his letter to the assembly indicted by him that same year.From all which (without noticing the Erastian form of these acts, &c.)it may be observed, that there is somewhat done that is materially good;but then there is nothing importing the contrariety of Prelacy to thescriptures of truth, nor the divine right of Presbyterian churchgovernment, so that the whole of this settlement is purely political,done for the pleasure of the good subjects of Scotland: for, 1st, theonly reason why Prelacy is complained of and abolished, is, because itwas grievous and contrary to the inclinations of the generality of thepeople. It is not so much as declared contrary to law, though well knownthat it was condemned by many of the reforming laws; far less is itdeclared contrary to the word of God, and reformation principles foundedthereupon. Neither is it said to be a grievance to the nations, thoughit is manifest, by the nations entering into a solemn covenant toextirpate it, that it was an insupportable burden to all the three. Andthe great reason assigned for the people's dissatisfaction to Prelacy,is _antiquity_, "they having been reformed from Popery by presbyters,"as if our reformers had only contended for a church government merelyhuman; whereas they strenuously maintained the divine right ofpresbytery, and condemned Prelacy as contrary to the word of God. Thisreason would be equally strong against presbytery, on supposition thatprelates had got the start of presbyters in the reformation from Popery.Again, 2d, upon the same, and no better ground, was Presbyteryestablished, namely, because it was more agreeable to the inclinationsof the people, and as it was of a more ancient standing in Scotland thanPrelacy. Further, that the divine right of presbytery is notacknowledged in this settlement, appears from the express words of theact itself, wherein it is designated, "the only government of Christ'schurch in the nation;" not the only government of Christ's church laiddown in the word of God, received and sworn to by all the three nations,ratified by both civil and ecclesiastical authority. A clear evidence,that church government was regarded as ambulatory only, and what mightbe altered at pleasure. Hence, while the king was settling presbytery inScotland, he was also maintaining, as bound by oath, Prelacy in England,&c. And so Presbytery, for peace's sake, as most agreeable to theinclinations of the people, was settled in Scotland as the government ofChrist's church there. Thus, there is a settlement of religion, and yetnot one line of scripture authority, or reformation principles legibletherein: and, as one said (though a strenuous defender of thesettlement), "The glory of that church is at a low pass, which hangsupon the nail of legal securities by kings and parliaments, instead ofthe nail which God has fastened in a sure place;" which, alas! is thecase with the church of Scotland at this day. It is true, that theparliament call their settlement, "Agreeable to God's word;" but it isas true, that, from their conduct toward both (abolishing Prelacy, andestablishing Presbytery, from these political motives above mentioned),it is abundantly plain, that they believed neither of them to beformally and specifically agreeable to, and founded upon the word ofGod; but that they regarded all forms of church government asindifferent, and thought themselves at liberty to pick and choose such aparticular form as best suited the humors and inclinations of thepeople, and their own worldly advantage. Accordingly, we find theparliament 1689, appointing a committee to receive all the forms ofgovernment that should be brought before them, to examine them for thispurpose, and then report their opinions of them to the house.

That the parliament at this time, or the king and parliament conjunctly,acted from the above latitudinarian principle, is further evident, fromtheir establishing and consenting to the establishment of these twodifferent and opposite forms of church government, Presbytery in_Scotland_, and Prelacy in _England_ and _Ireland_, and both of themconsidered as agreeable to the word of God, and the only government ofChrist's church in the several kingdoms, where they were espoused;which, as it is self-contradictory and absurd, so it is impossible theycould ever have done this, if they had believed the divine right ofeither of them. And finally, by this conduct of theirs, the statedeclared their approbation thereof, and resolution to copy after the16th _Act, Sess._ 2d _Parl._ 1st of _Charles_ II (yet in force), whichascribes an Erastian power to the king, of settling church government ashe shall think proper. By all which it appears quite inconsistent withthe Revolution settlement, to consider church power in any other light,than as subordinate to the power of the state. And yet with thispolitical and Erastian settlement of religion, the Revolution Churchhave declared themselves satisfied; they have not condemned Episcopacy,as contrary to the word of God, nor positively asserted the divine rightof Presbytery, and disclaimed the claim of right and act of settlement,as their right of constitution; but, on the contrary, approved of both,as appears from the commission's act, 1709, and their address to theparliament, 1711, both homologated by the succeeding assemblies. Wherebythey declare, that they have dropped a most material part of thetestimony of the reformed church of _Scotland_, and are not faithful tothe Lord Jesus Christ, in maintaining the rights of his crown andkingdom. From the whole, it may too justly be concluded concerning theRevolution settlement of religion, what the prophet _Hosea_ declares ofthe calf of _Samaria, Hos._ viii, 6: "For from Israel was it also, theworkman made it, therefore it is not God; the calf of _Samaria_ shall bebroken in pieces." It is not a divine institution founded upon the wordof God, and regulated by his revealed law; but a human invention, owingits original in both kingdoms to the inclinations of the people, andgoverned by laws opposite to the laws of Christ in the word.

Hence we have the idolatrous institutions of Prelacy, established in theone nation, and Erastianism, under the specious pretext of Presbytery,in the other; and both under an exotic head of ecclesiasticalgovernment.

From what is said above, respecting the Revolution constitutions, andsettlement of religion in the nations, it will appear, that the same areopposite to the word of God, and covenanted constitutions of both churchand state, and to the reforming laws, between 1638 and 1650, ratifyingand securing the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of thechurch, and all divine ordinances, sacred and civil, according toscripture revelation; and therefore cannot be acknowledged as lawful, byany that make the law of God their rule, and desire to go out by thefootsteps of the flock of Christ.

The Presbytery proceed now to consider the administration since the lateRevolution, as standing in immediate connection with the forementionedconstitutions and settlement: only, in the entry, it may be observed,that as the mal-administrations, civil and ecclesiastical, are increasedto almost an innumerable multitude, so that it would be next to animpossibility to reckon them all; the Presbytery propose only to observeso many of the most remarkable instances, as shall be sufficient tojustify a condemnation of the present course of the nations, althoughthe constitutions could not, be excepted against as sinful. And,

1. The Presbytery declare and testify against the gross Erastianism thathas attended the administrations of both church and state, since theRevolution. As the constitutions of both (above noticed) were Erastianand anti-scriptural, so their conduct ever since has been agreeablethereto, tending evidently to discover that, while the state is robbingout Redeemer of his crown, and his church of her liberties, this church,instead of testifying against, gives consent to these impieties.

Particularly, 1, as at the forementioned period, so ever since, the kinghas continued, by his own authority, to call, dissolve, and adjourn thenational assemblies of this church. The first Revolution Assembly washeld, by virtue of an Erastian indictment, and by the same powerdissolved. The nest was, by royal authority, appointed to be at_Edinburgh_ 1691, but by the same power, adjourned to 1692, and thendissolved, without passing any act; and though again indicted to meet1693, yet was not allowed to sit until _March_ 1694, near a year afterthe parliament had made an humble address to the sovereign for grantingthat privilege. But it would be endless to attempt an enumeration of allthe instances of the exercise of Erastianism in this particular, whichis annually renewed. How often, alas! have the assemblies beenprorogued, raised, and dissolved, by magistratical authority, andsometimes without nomination of another diet? How frequently also, havethey been restricted in their proceedings, and prelimited as to members,and matters to be treated of, and discussed therein; depriving somemembers of their liberty to sit and act as members, though regularlychosen, merely, because such had not taken the oaths appointed by law?All which exercise of Erastian supremacy natively results from theparliamentary settlement 1690. And when no adequate testimony was evergiven by the church against such Erastian usurpations, but they arestill crouched under and complied with, it may justly be constructed atame subjection and woful consent to this supremacy. That this is noforced inference from the continued practice of this church, appearsfrom this (besides other evidences that might be adduced), viz., That asthe Revolution parliament, when ratifying the Confession of Faith,entirely left out the act of Assembly 1647, approving and partlyexplaining the same (wherein these remarkable words are, "It is furtherdeclared, that the Assembly understands some parts of the second articleof the 31st chapter, only of kirks not settled or constituted in pointof government") as being inconsistent with the Erastian impositions ofthe magistrate. So this church, when they cause intrants into theministry subscribe the Confession, do not oblige them to subscribe itwith this explanatory act (which does by no means admit of a privativepower in the magistrate, destructive of the church's intrinsic power),but they only do it as the parliament ratified it.

2. Another instance of Erastianism practiced by both church and state,is, that when the king and parliament did bind down episcopal curatesupon congregations, forbidding church judicatories the exercise ofdiscipline upon the impenitent, and enjoining the Assembly to admitsuch, without any evidence of grief or sorrow for their former apostasy,upon their swearing the oath of allegiance, and subscribing a _formula_,homologating the Revolution settlement, substituted in the room of thecovenants; the church approved of this settlement, and protectiongranted by the civil powers to such curates all their lifetime in theirchurches and benefices, who yet were not brought under any obligation tosubject themselves to the government and discipline of the church. Thetruth of this is manifest, from sundry of king _William's_ letters tothe Assemblies, together with after acts of parliament, relativethereto. In his letter, dated _February_ 13th, 1690, to the commissionof the Assembly, he says, "Whereas there has been humble applicationmade to us by several ministers, for themselves and others, who latelyserved under episcopacy; we have thought good to signify our pleasure toyou, that you make no distinction of men, otherwise well qualified forthe ministry, though they have formerly conformed to the law,introducing Episcopacy, and that ye give them no disturbance or vexationfor that cause, or for that head: and it is our pleasure, that, until wegive our further directions, you proceed to no more process, or anyother business." In another letter, dated _June_ 15th, 1691, he says,"We are well pleased with what you write, to unite with such of theclergy, who have served under Episcopacy; and that you are sufficientlyinstructed by the General Assembly to receive them; from all which, wedo expect a speedy and happy success, that there shall be so great aprogress made in this union betwixt you, before our return to _Britain_,that we shall then find no cause to continue that stop, which at presentwe see necessary; and that neither you, nor any commission or churchmeeting, do meddle in any process or business, that may concern thepurging out of the episcopal ministers." And in a letter to theepiscopal clergy, he says, "We doubt not of your applying to, andconcurring with, your brethren the Presbyterian ministers, in the termswhich we have been of pains to adjust for you; the _formula_ will becommunicated to you by our commissioners," &c. See also the 27th _Act,Parl._ 1695, where it is declared, "That all such as shall duly come inand qualify themselves, shall have and enjoy his majesty's protection,as to their respective kirks and benefices, they always containingthemselves within the limits of their pastoral charge, within their saidparishes, without offering to exercise any part of government, unlessthey be first duly assumed by a competent church judicatory; providing,nevertheless, that as the said ministers are left free to apply, or not,to the foresaid church judicatories," &c. To which agree, _Act_ 2d,_Parl._ 1700; _Act_ 3d, _Parl._ 1702; _Act_ 2d, _Parl._ 1703, &c. Beholdhere the civil magistrate, exercising the supremacy in mattersecclesiastical, in that he both establishes the old _Scots_ curates intheir respective parishes, upon their former footing, limits them in theexorcise of their function, discharging them from exercising any part ofecclesiastical polity, but upon their uniting with the Presbyterians, onthe terms he had adjusted for them. And further, by his authority stopsthe exercise of church discipline against these curates (though the mostof them were notoriously scandalous); nay, even discharges the Assemblyfrom proceeding to any other business, until they received otherdirections from the throne. Which palpable instance of Erastianism inthe state, was not only peaceably submitted to, but heartily acquiescedin by the church: for as they had declared they would censure noprelatical incumbent for his principles anent church government, howevermuch disaffected to a covenanted reformation, and had given frequentdiscoveries of their readiness to receive into communion the episcopalcurates, according to the terms prescribed by the parliament (as appearsfrom the Assembly records); so the Assembly 1694, _Act_ 11th, havingframed a sham _formula_, for receiving in the curates, containing nosuch thing as any renunciation of abjured prelacy, the abominable test,and other sinful oaths these creatures had taken, but only anacknowledgment of the Revolution settlement of religion, as establishedby law, by the foresaid act, appointed their commission to receive allthe episcopal clergy who applied, and being qualified according to law,would also subscribe their _formula_, and that without requiring theleast show of repentance for their scandalous public sins, and theirdeep guilt of the effusion of the blood of God's faithful saints andwitnesses during the tyranny of the two brothers. These instructions tothe commission and other judicatories (as appears by their acts), weresuccessively renewed by the Assembly upward of twenty times, from 1694to 1716, and were indeed attended with good success, as is evident fromtheir address to the queen, recorded _Act_ 10th, 1712; where theydeclare, as an instance of their moderation, "That since the Revolution,there had been taken in, and continued, hundreds of the episcopalcurates upon the easiest terms," viz., such as were by the royalprerogative adjusted to them. Which practice, as it declares this churchhomologators of Erastianism, so is directly opposite to Presbyterianprinciples, the discipline and practice of our reformed church of_Scotland_, and to the laws of Christ, the supreme lawgiver, _Ezek._xliv, 10-15; _2 Cor._ vi, 17, 18, &c.

3. A _third_ instance of the Erastianism practiced since the revolution,is, that the king and parliament have taken upon them to prescribe andlay down, by magistratical authority, conditions and qualifications,_sine qua non_, of ministers and preachers. For proof of which, see_Act_ 6th, _Sess._ 4th, _Parl._ 1st, 1693, where it is enacted, "Thatthe said oath of allegiance be sworn the same with the foresaidassurance, be subscribed by all preachers and ministers of the gospelwhatever--certifying such of the foresaid persons as are, or shall be,in any public office, and shall own and exercise the same without takingthe said oath and assurance in manner foresaid,--ministers provided tokirks shall be deprived of their benefices or stipends, and preachersshall be punished with banishment, or otherwise, as the council shallthink fit." Also, _Act_ 23d, 1693, it is ordained, "That no person beadmitted or continued to be a minister, or preach within this church,unless that he have first taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance,and subscribed the oath of assurance in manner appointed. And furtherstatute and ordain, that uniformity of worship be observed by all thesaid ministers and preachers, as the same are at present performed andallowed therein, or shall hereafter be declared by the authority of thesame: and that no minister or preacher be continued and admittedhereafter, unless that he subscribe to observe, and do actually observe,the foresaid uniformity." The Erastianism in these acts seems screwed upyet a little higher, by _Act_ 7th, _Sess._ 5th, _Parl._ 1st, 1695;where, after appointing a new day to such ministers as had not formerlyobeyed, it is ordained: "With certification that such of the saidministers as shall not come in between and said day, are hereby, and bythe force of this present act, _ipso facto_, deprived of theirrespective kirks and stipends, and the same declared vacant, without anyfurther sentence." The Erastianism in these acts is so manifest at firstsight, that it is needless to illustrate the same; only it may beremarked, that, by these acts, the civil magistrate prescribes newministerial qualifications, viz., the oaths of allegiance and assurance;and these imposed instead of an oath of allegiance to Zion's King, viz.,the oaths of the covenants. As also, that ministers are herebyrestricted from advancing reformation, being bound down to observe thatuniformity at present allowed, or that shall hereafter be declared byauthority of parliament. And further, Erastianism is here advanced tothe degree of wresting the keys of government out of the hands of thechurch altogether--taking to themselves the power of deposing all suchministers as shall not submit to their anti-christian impositions, andof declaring and ascertaining, by their own authority, what mode ofworship or government shall take place in the church hereafter. ThisErastian appointment of ministerial qualifications, &c., is evidentlyinjurious, both to the headship of Christ in his church, and to thechurch's intrinsic power. It pertains to the royal prerogative ofChrist, to appoint all the qualifications of his officers, which he hasdone in the Word. And it pertains to the church representative, byapplying the laws of Christ in his Word, to declare who are qualifiedfor the ministry, and who are not. But here the civil power, without anyregard to church judicatories, by a magisterial authority, judges anddetermines, the qualifications that gospel ministers must have,otherwise they cannot be acknowledged ministers of this church. At thesame time, it must be regretted, that the church, instead of faithfullydiscovering the sinfulness of foresaid conduct, and testifying againstit, as an anti-christian usurpation, have declared their approbationthereof, by taking the above named illimited oaths, according to theparliament's order; and also by the assembly's enjoining theircommission to act conform to the parliament's directions respectingministerial qualifications, in their admission of those that hadformerly conformed to Episcopacy, and refusing to admit any into theircommunion without having these new ministerial qualifications.

4. A fourth piece of Erastianism exercised since the commencement of therevolution settlement, against which the presbytery testify, is, thecivil magistrate, by himself and his own authority, without consultingthe church, or any but his parliament, privy council, and diocesanbishops, his appointing diets and causes of public fasting andthanksgiving. A number of instances might here be condescended on. So anact of the states, _anno_ 1689, for public thanksgiving. An act ofparliament 1693, appointing a monthly fast, declares, "That theirmajesties, with advice and consent of the said estates of parliament, dohereby command and appoint, that a day of solemn fasting and humiliationbe religiously and strictly observed, by all persons within thiskingdom, both in church and meeting-houses, upon the third _Thursday_ ofthe month of _May_, and, the third _Thursday_ of every month thereafter,until intimation of forbearance be made by the lords of their majesties'privy council; and ordains all ministers to read these presents a_Sunday_ before each of these fast days, nominated, by authority; andordains all disobeyers to be fined in a sum not exceeding 100L., andevery minister who shall not obey, to be processed before the lords oftheir majesties' privy council; and requiring sheriffs to make report ofthe ministers who shall fail of their duty herein, to the privycouncil." But it is to no purpose to multiply instances of this kind,seeing it has been the common practice of every sovereign since therevolution, to appoint and authorize national diets of fasting, withcivil pains annexed. And as the state has made these encroachments uponthe royalties of Christ, so this church, instead of bearing faithfultestimony against the same, have finally submitted thereto. Inagreeableness to the royal appointment, they observed the monthly fastfor the success of the war against _Lewis_ XIV (of which above), and infavor of the Pope, which king _William_ was bound to prosecute by virtueof a covenant made with the allies at the _Hague, February_, 1691, to beseen in the declaration of war then made against _France_, wherein it isexpressly said, "That no peace is to be made with _Lewis_ XIV, till hehas made reparation to the Holy See for whatsoever he has acted againstit, and till he make void all these infamous proceedings (viz., of theparliament of _Paris_) against the holy father, _Innocent_ XI." Beholdhere the acknowledgment of the Pope's supremacy, and his power anddignity, both as a secular and ecclesiastical prince; and in theobservation of these fasts, the church did mediately (_tell it not inGath_--) pray for success to the _man of sin_--a practice utterlyrepugnant to Protestant, much more to Presbyterian, principles, andwhich will be a lasting stain upon both church and state. As this churchdid then submit, so since she has made a resignation and surrender ofthat part of the church's intrinsic right to the civil power, see _Act_7th, _Assem._ 1710: "All ministers and members are appointed religiouslyto observe all fasts and thanksgivings whatever, appointed by the churchor supreme magistrate; and the respective judicatories are appointed totake particular notice of the due observation of this, and _Act_ 4th,1722, _Act_ 5th, 1725." From which acts it is manifest, that theRevolution Church has not only declared the power and right ofauthoritative indicting public fasts and thanksgivings for ordinary,even in a constituted settled national church, to belong, at leastequally, to the civil magistrate, as to the church; but, by theirconstant practice, have undeniably given up the power of the same to thecivil power altogether--it being fact, that she never, by her own power,appoints a national diet of fasting, but still applies to the king forthe nomination thereof. And further, as a confirmation of thissurrender, it appears from their public records, that when some membershave protested against the observation of such diets, the assembly wouldneither receive nor record such protest. Now, the sinfulness of thisErastian practice still persisted in, is evident from the Scriptures oftruth, where the glorious king of Zion assigns the power of appointingfasts, not to the civil magistrate, but to the spiritual office-bearersin his house. _Jer._ xiii, 18: "Say unto the king and queen, Humbleyourselves." Here it is the office of the prophets of the Lord, toenjoin humiliation work upon those that are in civil authority, contraryto the present practice, when kings and queens, usurping the sacredoffice, by their authority, say to ministers, "Humble yourselves." Seealso, _Joel_ i, 13, 14, and ii, 15, 16, compared with _Numb._ x, 8-10.Here whatever pertains to these solemnities, is entrusted to, andrequired of, the ministers of the Lord, without the intervention ofcivil authority. The same is imported in _Matth._ xvi, 19, and xviii,18; _John_ xx, 23--it being manifestly contained in the power of thekeys committed, by the church's head, to ecclesiastical officers.Moreover, this Erastianism, flowing from a spiritual supremacy exercisedover the church, is peculiarly aggravated by these particulars:

1. That commonly these fasts have been appointed on account of wars, inwhich the nations were engaged, in conjunction with gross anti-christianidolaters, who have been most active in their endeavors to root outProtestantism. Now, it cannot but be most provoking to the Majesty ofHeaven for professed Presbyterians to observe fasts, the professeddesign of which, includes success to the interest of the avowed enemiesof our glorious REDEEMER. Again, the above practice is aggravated, fromthis consideration, that these diets of fasting, with civil painsannexed to them, are sent by public proclamation, directed to theirsheriffs and other subordinate civil officers, who are authorized todispatch them to the ministers, and inspect their observation thereof.And while professed ministers of Christ tamely comply with all this, itamounts to no less, than a base subjection of the worship of God, in thesolemnity of fasting in a national way, to the arbitrament of the civilpowers, when whatever time and causes they appoint, must be observed.

From all which, in the words of the ministers of _Perth_ and _Fife_, intheir testimony to the truth, &c., 1758, the presbytery testify againstthe above Erastian conduct, as being, in its own nature, introductory togreater encroachments, and putting into the hands of the civil powers,the modeling of the worship of God, and things most properlyecclesiastical.

5. Another piece of Erastianism, respecting the present administration,which the Presbytery testify against, is the king and parliament theirarbitrarily imposing several of their acts and statutes upon ministersand preachers, under ecclesiastical pains and censures; while thisRevolution Church, by their silent submission and compliance therewith,have, at least, interpretatively given their consent thereto. Thus, asthe oaths of allegiance and assurance were enjoined upon all inecclesiastical office, under the pain of church censure (of whichabove), so likewise, _Act_ 6th, 1706, ordains, "That no professors andprincipals, bearing office in any university, be capable, or be admittedto continue in the exercise of their said functions, but such as shallown the civil government, in manner prescribed, or to be prescribed byacts of parliament." In consequence of which, there is an _Act_ 1707, anact in the first year of king _George_ I, and another in the fifth yearof his reign; by all which statutes, ecclesiastical persons are enjoinedto take the oath of abjuration, with the other oaths, under pain ofhaving ecclesiastical censures inflicted upon them. And they ordain,"That no person be admitted to trials, or licensed to preach, until theyhave taken the public oaths, on pain of being disabled." The foresaidact, in the fifth year of _George_ I, ordains, "all ministers andpreachers to pray in express words for his majesty and the royal family,as in former acts." The king and parliament at their own hand prescribea set form of prayer for the Church of _Scotland_, and that underErastian penalties, upon the disobeyers. Again, by an act of 1737,framed for the more effectual bringing to justice the murderers ofCaptain _Porteous_, it is enacted, "That this act shall be read in everyparish church throughout _Scotland_, on the first Lord's day of everymonth, for one whole year, from the first day of _August_, 1737, by theminister of the parish, in the morning, immediately before the sermon;and, in case such ministers shall neglect to read this act, as is heredirected, he shall, for the first offense, be declared incapable ofsitting or voting in any church judicatory; and for the second offense,be declared incapable of taking, holding or enjoying any ecclesiasticalbenefice in that part of _Great Britain_ called _Scotland_." TheErastianism of this act is very plain, the penalties thereof areecclesiastical, and infer a kind of deposition; seeing the disobeyersare hereby disabled from exercising and enjoying what is essential totheir office. Moreover, the wickedness of this act appears, in that itwas appointed to be read on the Sabbath day, and in time of divineservice; whereby ministers being constituted the magistrates' heralds toproclaim this act, were obliged to profane the Lord's day, and corrupthis worship, by immixing human inventions therewith, which was directlya framing mischief into a law. Yet, with all these impositions abovenoticed, this church has generally complied; and thereby declared thatthey are more studious of pleasing and obeying men, than God, seeingtheir practice therein infers no less, than a taking instructions in theministerial function, and matters of divine worship, from another headthan Christ.

6. The last piece of Erastian administration in church and state, thepresbytery take notice of, and testify against, is that of patronages.When the parliament 1690, had changed the form of patronages, by takingthe power of presentations from patrons, and lodging it in the hands ofsuch heritors and elders as were qualified by law, excluding the peoplefrom a vote in calling their ministers, this Erastian act, spoiling thepeople of their just privilege, was immediately embraced by the church,as is evident from their overtures for church discipline, 1696, wherethey declare that only heritors and elders have a proper right to votein the nomination of a minister. Also their overtures, 1705 and 1719, dolodge the sole power of nomination of ministers in the hands of themajority of heritors, by giving them a negative over the eldership andcongregation. But, as if this had not been a sufficient usurpation ofthe people's right, purchased to them by the blood of Christ, by an actof parliament, 1712, the above act, 1690, is repealed, and patrons fullyrestored to all their former anti-christian powers over the heritage ofthe Lord; which yoke still continues to oppress the people of God. Whileagain, this church, as if more careful to please the court, and courtparasites, than Christ and his people, have not only peaceably fallen inwith this change, daily practicing it in planting vacant congregations,but, as fond of this child of _Rome_, have further established andconfirmed the power of patrons, by the sanction of their authority, asappears from several acts of assembly, thereby declaring theirresolutions to have this epidemic evil continued, though it shouldterminate in the utter ruin of the church. Patronage was always by theChurch of _Scotland_ since the reformation, accounted an intolerableyoke; and therefore she never ceased contending against it until it wasat last utterly abolished by acts both of reforming assemblies andparliaments; and that as one of the inventions of the whore of _Rome_.

As this anti-christian practice was unknown to the church in herprimitive and purest times, until gradually introduced with other popishcorruptions, so it has not the least vestige of any warrant in the wordof truth: nay, is directly opposite thereto, and to the apostolicalpractice: Acts i, 15-24; chap. vi, 2-7: as also, xiv, 23, and xvi, 9,with other passages therein;--a book, intended to give us theapostolical practice and pattern, in the settlement of the Christianchurch: and 2 Cor. iii, 19, &c. Wherefore the presbytery testify againstthis Erastian usurpation, as most sinful in itself, most injurious tothe church of Christ, and inconsistent with the great ends of theministry; and against this church, for not only submitting unto, buteven promoting this wickedness; which is evident, from her deposing someof her members, for no other reason but because they could not approveof this pernicious scheme. Witness Mr. _Gallespie_, minister at Carnock,who was deposed May, 1752: and against all violent intruders, who, notentering by the door, can be regarded only as thieves and robbers; Johnx, 1.

These are a few of the many instances of the Erastian usurpations of theheadship of Christ, as a Son, in and over his own house, and of thechurch's intrinsic power assumed by the state, and consented to by thischurch since the Revolution.[2] And without condescending upon any more,the presbytery concludes this part, with observing upon the whole, thatwhen Henry VIII of England did cast off the authority of the see ofRome, and refused to give that subjection to the pope formerly paid byhim and his predecessors; he did, at the same time, assume to himselfall that power in his dominions, which the pope formerly claimed; andsoon afterward procured to have himself acknowledged and declared, byact of parliament, to be head of the church--head over all persons, andin all causes, civil and ecclesiastical. And which anti-christiansupremacy has, ever since, continued an essential part of the Englishconstitution, and inherent right of the crown; so that all the crownedheads there, have ever since been as little popes over that realm: andthat all such still appropriate unto themselves that blasphemousanti-christian title of the head of the church, and supreme judge in allcauses, is undeniably evident from the known laws and canons of England:and further appears from a declaration made by King George I, June 13th,1715, where he styles himself _Defender of the faith, and supremeGovernor of the church in his dominions_; declaring, that before theclergy can order or settle any differences about the external policy ofthe church, they must first obtain leave under his broad seal so to do.Which title or authority for man, or angel, to assume, is a downrightdethroning and exauctorating of Christ, the only and alone Head andSupreme Governor of his church. From this spiritual anti-christiansupremacy, granted by English laws to the king of England, confirmed andestablished, by virtue of the incorporating union, in British kings, byacts of British parliament, do flow all the forementioned acts imposedupon the Revolution Church of Scotland. And as these acts and lawsdeclare, that the British monarch confines not his spiritual supremacyto the church of England, but it extends it also over the church ofScotland: so this Revolution Church, having never either judicially orpractically lifted up the standard of a public, free and faithfultestimony, against these sinful usurpations, flowing from the fountainof said supremacy, and clothed with the authority of an anti-christianparliament, where abjured bishops sit constituent members, but, on thecontrary, has submitted to every one of them; therefore, this church mayjustly be constructed, as approvers and maintainers of Erastiansupremacy. And hereby, indeed, the revolt of these degenerate lands fromtheir sworn subjection and obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ, assupreme in his own house, is completed, when they have these many yearssubstituted another in his place, and framed supremacy into a standinglaw, to be the rule, according to which their kings must lord it overthe house and heritage of the Living God. Again:

The presbytery testify against the manifold, and almost uninterruptedopposition to the ancient glorious uniformity in religion between thenations, that has appeared in the administrations of both church andstate, since the last Revolution. The revolution constitution andsettlement of religion, as has been already observed, laid our solemncovenants and work of reformation, sworn to therein, in a grave, andmany stones have since been brought and cast upon them: many ways andmeasures have both church and state taken to make sure the revolutionsepulcher of a covenanted work of reformation, and prevent, if possible,its future resurrection: against all which, the presbytery judgethemselves bound to lift up their testimony. Particularly,

1. The presbytery testify against the incorporating union of this nationwith _England_; and as being an union founded upon an open violation ofall the articles of the Solemn League and Covenant, still binding uponthe nations; and consequently, destructive of that uniformity inreligion, once happily attained to by them: which will at first viewappear, by comparing the articles of the union with those of the SolemnLeague. All associations and confederacies with the enemies of truereligion and godliness, are expressly condemned in scripture, andrepresented as dangerous to the true _Israel_ of God: _Isa._ viii, 12;_Jer._ ii, 28; _Psal._ cvi, 35; _Hos._ v, 13, and vii, 8, 11; 2 _Cor._vi, 14, 15. And if simple confederacies with malignants and enemies tothe cause of Christ are condemned, much more is an incorporation withthem, which is an embodying of two into one, and, therefore, a straiterconjunction. And taking the definition of malignants, given by thedeclaration of both kingdoms joined in arms, _anno_ 1643, to be just,which says, "such as would not take the covenant, were declared to bepublic enemies to their religion and country, and that they are to becensured and punished, as professed adversaries and malignants;" itcannot be refused, but that the prelatical party in _England_, nowjoined with, are such. Further, by this incorporating union, this nationis obliged to support the idolatrous Church of _England_; agreeablewhereto, the _Scottish_ parliament, in their act of security, relativeto the treaty of union, declares, "that the parliament of _England_ mayprovide for the security of the Church of _England_, as they thinkexpedient." Accordingly, the _English_ parliament, before entering uponthe treaty of union with _Scotland_, framed an act for securing theChurch of _England's_ hierarchy and worship, as by law established.Which act, they declare, "Shall be inserted, in express terms, in anyact of parliament which shall be made for settling and ratifying anytreaty of union, and shall be declared to be an essential fundamentalpart thereof." Hence, the act of the _English_ parliament for the unionof the two kingdoms, contains the above act for securing the Church of_England_. Which act being sent down to _Scotland_, stands recordedamong the acts of the last _Scottish_ parliament. Moreover, the lastarticle of said union contains, that all laws and statutes in eitherkingdom, so far as they are contrary to, or inconsistent with the termsof these articles, or any of them, shall, from and after the union,cease and become void; which, as in the act of exemplification, wasdeclared to be, by the parliaments of both kingdoms. Thus, this nation,by engrossing the _English_ act, establishing Prelacy, and all thesuperstitious ceremonies, in the act of the union parliament, and byannulling all acts contrary to the united settlement, have sealed, asfar as men can do, the gravestones formerly laid upon the covenanteduniformity of the nations. To all which the revolution church, byconsenting, and practically approving this unhallowed union, have saidAmen; though, at first, some of the members opposed and preached againstit, yet afterward changed, and (if some historians may be credited) bythe influence of gold, were swayed to an approbation. This church'sconsent to the union is evident, from their accepting of the act ofsecurity, enacted by the _Scots_ parliament, as the legal establishmentand security of the Church of _Scotland_; and from the assembly 1715,utterly rejecting a proposal to make a representation to the king, thatthe incorporating union was a grievance to the Church of _Scotland_;though it ought still to be regarded as such, by all the lovers ofreformation principles, because it is a disclaiming of our sworn duty,to endeavor the reformation of _England_ and _Ireland_. It is aconsenting to the legal and unalterable establishment of abjured Prelacyin them, obliges the sovereigns of _Great Britain_ to swear to thepreservation of the prelatical constitution, and idolatrous ceremoniesof the episcopal church, and join in communion therewith; and,therefore, for ever secludes all true Presbyterians from the supremerule. This union establishes the civil, lordly power of bishops,obliging the Church of _Scotland_ to acknowledge them as their lawfulmagistrates and ministers, to pray for a blessing upon them in theexercise of their civil power, and is therefore a solemn ratification ofanti-christian Erastianism. It has formally rescinded, and for ever madevoid any act or acts, in favor of a covenanted uniformity in religion,that might be supposed to be in force before this union: and therefore,while it stands, it is impossible there can be a revival of that blessedwork, which was once the glory of the nations of _Scotland, England_ and_Ireland_.

2. The presbytery testify against the sinful practice of imposing oathsupon the subjects, contradictory to presbyterian principles in general,and the oath of the covenants in particular, as the allegiance, andparticularly the abjuration; all which oaths, imposed by a _British_parliament, exclude our covenanted uniformity, and homologate the unitedconstitution. But, to prevent mistakes, let it be here observed, thatthe presbytery do not testify against any of these oaths, out of theremotest regard to the spurious pretended right of a popish pretender tothe throne and crown of these kingdoms; for they judge and declare,that, by the word of God, and fundamental laws of the nations, he canhave no right, title or claim, to be king of these covenantedkingdoms--seeing, by our covenants and laws, establishing the covenantedreformation, which are well founded on the divine law, all Papists, aswell as Prelatists, are forever excluded from the throne of these, andespecially of this land. So that it is utterly inconsistent with theprinciples maintained by this presbytery, constituted upon the footingof the covenanted church of _Scotland_, and the oath of God they, withthe nations, are under, ever to acknowledge and own the popishpretender, or any of that cursed race, as their king; but they testifyagainst these oaths, because they bind to the acknowledgment of thelawfulness of a prelatic Erastian constitution of civil government, andhomologate the incorporating union, in one article whereof, it isdeclared, that these words, "This realm, and the crown of this realm,&c," mentioned in the oaths, shall be understood of the crown and realmof _Great Britain_, &c.; and that in that sense the said oaths shall betaken and subscribed, and particularly the oath of abjuration, whichwhosoever takes, swears to maintain Erastian supremacy, Prelacy, and_English_ popish ceremonies; and so, at least, by native and necessaryconsequence, the swearing thereof is an abjuring of our sacredcovenants. But that which puts it beyond all dispute, that the oath ofabjuration, in the literal sense thereof, obliges to maintain theprelatic constitution of _England_, both in church and state, as by lawestablished, and secured by the union act, is the express words of thatact of parliament, by which this oath was imposed, and to which itexpressly refers, viz., the act of further limitation, where it is said:"On which said acts (viz., of limitation, and further limitation), thepreservation of your majesty's royal person and government, and themaintaining of the church of _England_, as by law established, do, underGod, entirely depend. To the intent therefore, that these acts may beforever inviolably preserved, it is hereby enacted, that magistrates andministers shall take the following oath," namely, of abjuration. Theabove act, then, declaring that said oath was directly intended for thesupport and establishment of the prelatic church of _England_, itfollows, that this oath is a solemn abjuration of the covenantedreformation, as it is also expressly repugnant to Presbyterianprinciples. But though the above oath is so manifestly sinful, yet theministers of this church did neither faithfully warn others of the sinand danger thereof, nor faithfully oppose it when imposed on themselves;but, agreeing that every one should act therein as he thought proper,they who refused it may be reputed _socii criminis_ with the generality,who, contrary to their professed principles, did take and subscribe thesame, and that (as says the oath) heartily and willingly; whereby theynot only engaged to maintain a prelatic government, Prelacy, with allits popish ceremonies, but to maintain _only_ a prelatic government, andto oppose all others, even though Presbyterian, in their accession tothe throne; and this by virtue of the sinful limitations and conditions,wherewith the oath is clogged. And hereby, these nominal Presbyteriansdiscover that they are not possessed of a zeal for the advancement ofthe true Presbyterian cause and principles, proportionable to that whichthe _English_ discover for their will worship and superstition.

3. The presbytery testify against a sinful and almost boundlesstoleration, granted _anno_ 1712, a woful fruit of the union; by whichtoleration act, not only those of the Episcopal communion in _Scotland_have the protection of authority, but a wide door is cast open, andample pass given to all sects and heretics (popish recusants andantitrinitarians some way excepted, who yet are numerous in the nation),to make whatever attacks they please upon the kingdom and interest ofour glorious Redeemer, in order to the advancement of their own and thedevil's, and all with impunity. The foresaid act warrants the Episcopalclergy publicly to administer all ordinances, and perform their worshipafter their own manner, with all the popish canons and ceremoniesthereof, and obliges all magistrates to protect and assist them, whileit destroys the hedge of church discipline against the scandalous andprofane, and is, therefore, a settling and establishing of Prelacy in_Scotland_, giving it a security, little, if anything, inferior to thatwhich the established church has. Again, by a clause in the tolerationbill, the security given by former laws to Presbyterian churchgovernment and discipline, is undermined and taken away, at leastrendered ineffectual, and made the subject of ridicule to the openlyprofane, by the civil magistrate's withdrawing his concurrence, in asmuch as it declares the civil pain of excommunication to be taken away,and that none are to be compelled to appear before church judicatories.There is nothing in religion of an indifferent nature; "For whosoever[saith Christ] shall break one of the least of these commandments, andshall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." Itmust, then, be the most daring wickedness, and an affronting of theMajesty of Heaven in the highest manner, for an earthly monarch topretend to enact a toleration of religions, and thereby give a libertywhere the divine law has laid a restraint; it implies an exalting ofhimself, not only to an equality with, but to a state of superiorityabove, the God of glory. Whatever principles are of divine authorityrequire no toleration from man; it is wickedness to pretend to do it,seeing whatever comes under the necessity of a toleration, properly socalled, falls, at the same time, under the notion of a crime. And noless wicked is it for a magistrate to protect, by a promiscuoustoleration, all heretics, heresies and errors; yea, it is a manifestbreach of trust, and plain perverting the end of his office, seeing heis appointed to be _custos et vindex utriusque tabulae_, intrusted withthe concerns of God's glory, as well as the interests of men. Experiencehas, in every age, taught, that a toleration of all religions is thecut-throat and ruin of all true religion. It is the most effectualmethod that ever the policy of hell hatched, to banish all truegodliness out of the world. But however manifold the evils be thattoleration is big with, this church, instead of opposing, seems to havecomplied therewith, and to be of toleration principles; which isevident, not only from their receiving into communion the _Scots_curates, of which above; but from their joining in communion with Mr._Whitefield (an English_ curate and member of that church, andring-leader of the Methodists there), when he is in _Scotland_. Again,it is known, that when the _Scots_ gentlemen are sent to attend the_British_ parliament, or at any time in _England_, they do, many ofthem, join in communion with the prelatic church--nay, are guilty oftaking the sacramental test (that is, taking the sacrament after theirsuperstitious manner, to qualify them for any public post); yet thischurch receives them into the closest communion, without requiring anysatisfaction for these evils; whereby they act contrary to Christ'sexample, in purging and keeping his house pure, and contrary to theScripture; _Rev._ ii, 14, 15, 20.

4. In like manner, the presbytery testify against the tyranny that hasfrequently appeared in the administration since the revolution, both inchurch and state. The civil powers have discovered not a little oftyrannical and arbitrary power, in imposing their laws, statutes andinjunctions, upon the church, as in the instances of the particularsformerly noticed. But further, it has appeared in their fining andimprisoning persons, because (though endeavoring to live peaceably, asfar as possible, with all men) they could not, in conscience, and in adue regard to the covenanted cause, own the lawfulness of theirauthority, by swearing fidelity to the present constitution. Again, intheir dispensing with, and counteracting, the law of God in a variety ofinstances. Thus, while, without any divine warrant, the crime of theftis capitally punished, yet the grossest adulterers, who are capitallypunishable by the divine law, pass with impunity. And frequentlyreprieves, and sometimes pardons (as in the case of _Porteous_), havebeen granted to murderers, expressly contrary to the law of God, whichdeclares that "Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood beshed." Another astonishing and full evidence of the above charge, is inthe act repealing the penal statutes against witches, &c., 1735, whereit is enacted, "That no prosecution, suit or proceeding, shall becarried on against any person or persons, for witchcraft, sorcery,enchantment or conjuration," &c. This act, in plain terms, flatlycontradicts and opposes the law of God, in the very letter thereof. See_Levit._ xx, 6, 27; _Deut._ xviii, 10-12; _Exod._ xxii, 18. Not only hasthe state, in these and other instances (as the imposing almostintolerable taxations upon the impoverished subjects, for supporting thegrandeur of useless and wicked pensioners, and for carrying on wars,often not only sinful in respect of their rise and causes, but in theirnature and tendency unprofitable to the nations), been guilty of thisevil, but also the Revolution Church has exercised a most tyrannicalgovernment. As many of the constituent members of the Revolution Churchhad shown a persecuting, tyrannizing spirit, against the faithfulcontenders for the truth, in the matter of the public resolutions, sothe same spirit has still continued since the revolution, and frequentlyexerted itself in a most arbitrary manner, against all who have made anyappearance for a covenanted work of reformation. Accordingly, soon afterthe revolution, this church raised some processes against Mr. _JohnHepburn_, minister at _Orr_, under pretense of some irregularities, butin reality, for his making some appearance against their aboundingdefection, and for a covenanted work of reformation, and continued theirprosecution to suspension and deposition; and further, applied to thecivil magistrate, to apprehend said Mr. _Hepburn_, who accordingly wasimprisoned in _Edinburgh_, and then, because of his preaching to thepeople out of a window, was carried to _Stirling_ castle, and kept closeprisoner there for a considerable time, as a book, entitled _HumblePleadings_, fully discovers. They likewise exercised their tyrannyagainst Messrs. _Gilchrist_ in _Dunscore_, and _Taylor_ in _Wamphray_,whom they prosecuted, not only to deposition, but even excommunication,for no reason but their bearing testimony against that ensnaring oath ofabjuration, and a number of other defections. Again, this church, stillfond of suppressing the good old cause and owners thereof, framed andprosecuted a libel, most unjustly (some even of themselves beingjudges), against Mr. _John McMillan_, minister in _Balmaghie_, forpresenting, in a regular manner, a paper of real and acknowledgedgrievances; and, because he would not resile from it, but continued toplead for a redress, was at last deposed. As also Mr. _John McNeil_,preacher, for the same reason, had his license taken from him; and, bythe authority of the assembly, both of them were prosecuted andcensured, not for scandal, insufficiency or negligence, error indoctrine, &c., but only on account of their pleading for the covenantedreformation of the Church of _Scotland_, and maintaining a necessarytestimony against the prevailing corruptions and defections of formerand present times, as appears from their paper of grievances and jointdeclinature, printed 1708. Nay, such was their mad zeal againstreformation principles, that, by the _Act_ 15th of _Assem._ 1715, thecommission was not only empowered to censure all the forementionedpersons, but also enjoined to apply to the civil magistrate forsuppressing and punishing them; and accordingly sundry of them wereproclaimed rebels over public market crosses, only for their continuedadherence to reformation. And besides other instances, their magisterialand lordly power exercised over the flock of Christ, in the violentintrusion of ministers into vacant churches over the belly of thepeople, and then excommunicating from sealing ordinances such as cannotin conscience submit to the ministry of these intruders, is a mostglaring one; while at the same time, severe censures are inflicted uponsuch ministers as have the honesty to oppose these anti-christianmeasures. Loud complaints have likewise been made against theirarbitrary and tyrannical conduct, with reference to Mr. _EbenezerErskine_, and others with him, designated by the name of the _AssociatePresbytery_, because of their remonstrating against, and endeavoring torectify, some of the forementioned evils in the church; the justness ofwhich grievances and complaints may be instructed from their ownwritings on that head.

It must not be here omitted to remark, that as this church is justlycharged with tyranny in government, so she is equally guilty ofpartiality in discipline. Though all that discover any measure offaithfulness in the concerns of Christ's glory, are sure to meet withmost severe treatment, yet the loose, profane and erroneous, have seldomany church censures put in execution against them. This church nevermade any suitable inquiry into the sinful compliances, and saddefections of her members and office-bearers, during the persecutingperiod: and that unfaithfulness in the exercise of church discipline isstill copied after. How few, guilty of the most gross scandals, arecensured, such as notorious drunkenness, blasphemy, cursing, swearing,sabbath-breaking, uncleanness, especially among the rich, who arecapable to give pecuniary mulcts to free them from church censure?(Thus, in conformity to the prelatical and anti-christian example,setting to sale the censures of the church, and dispensing with the lawsof Christ for money.) Nay, not only are such overlooked, but many guiltyof these gross sins, together with oppression, neglecters of familyworship, and the grossly ignorant, are without any publicacknowledgement of these sins, admitted to the highest and most solemnordinances, viz., both sacraments. And this may be thought the lessstrange, when persons chargeable with most of these sins, are admitted,and continued to be office-bearers in the house of God. Persons, andeven teachers maintaining most dreadful blasphemous errors connived at,patronized, or but slightly censured, and still kept in communion,without any open renunciation of these heresies. Play-houses, theseminaries of vice and impiety, erected in the principal cities of thenation, and stage players, commonly among the most abandoned of mankind,escape with impunity. Yea, this pagan entertainment of the stage iscountenanced by the members and office-bearers of this church, and thatto such a degree, that one of the ministers thereof has commenced authorof a most profane play, called _The Tragedy of Douglas_, whereinimmorality is promoted, and what is sacred exposed to ridicule. Oh! howastonishing! that a minister in the once famous church of Scotlandshould be guilty of such abominations, and yet not immediately sentencedto bear the highest of all church censure!

5. The Presbytery testify against this established church, forunfaithfulness of doctrine; which will appear by a few instances:although before the Revolution, the Lord Jesus was openly, as far ashuman laws could do, divested of his headship and sovereignty in andover his church; although the divine right of presbytery had beenpublicly and nationally exploded, derided and denied, yet this churchhas never by any formal act, declared that our Lord Jesus Christ is soleking, the alone supreme head of his church--nor in the same mannerdeclared that the presbyterian form of church government is of divineright, and condemned all other forms as contrary to the word. Such atestimony was the more necessary, when the civil powers have arrogatedChrist's power to themselves, and continue to exercise it over hischurch; and the want of it is an evidence of the church's unsoundness inthe doctrine of government, and of Christ's kingly office. This church'serror in doctrine further appears from their condemnation of a bookentitled _The marrow of modern divinity_, as containing gross antinomianerrors; whereby they condemned many great gospel truths as errors,particularly, that believers are altogether set free from the law, as acovenant of works, both from its commanding and condemning power,together with others; whereby they have made way for, and encouragedthat legal, moral way of harranguing, exclusive of Christ and his mostperfect righteousness (which is so common and frequent in all parts ofthe land), and opened a door for introducing _Baxterian_ principles,which, in consequence hereof, have since very much prevailed. Anotherevidence of this church's unsoundness and unfaithfulness in doctrine, istheir excessive, sinful lenity toward the most gross heretics.Notwithstanding _Arminian_ and _Pelagian_ heresies, and _Arian_blasphemies, have been publicly taught; and although true godliness, andthe effectual working of the Spirit on the souls of men have beenpublicly exposed as enthusiasm, and many other damnable heresies vented,yet this church has never lifted up the faithful standard of a judicialtestimony, in condemnation of these heresies, and in vindication of theprecious truths of Christ thereby impugned. And when the ministers andmembers of this church have been processed before her assemblies, andconvicted of maintaining many gross errors, no adequate censure has beeninflicted. This particularly appears in the case of Mr. Simpson,professor of divinity in the college of Glasgow, when processed beforethe judicatories of this church, in the years 1715 and 1716, for severalgross errors; such as, "That regard to our own happiness, in theenjoyment of God, ought to be our chief motive in serving him, and thatour glorifying of God is subordinate to it: that Adam was not ourfederal head;" and other _Arminian, Socinian_ and _Pelagian_ heresies,all to be found in his answers to Mr. Webster's libel given in againsthim, and clearly proven: yet was he dismissed with a very gentleadmonition. Which sinful lenity encouraged him, not only to persist inthe same errors, but also to the venting of _Arian_ heresies among hisstudents.

Accordingly, he was again arraigned before the assembly's bar in theyears 1727-28-29, when it was found clearly proven that he had deniedthe necessary existence of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the numericalOneness of the Three Persons of the Trinity in substance and essence,with other damnable tenets. Yet when these articles, whereby he hadattempted to depose the Son of God from his supreme deity, were proven,and when (as one of the members of this church, in his protest againstthe assembly's sentence, said) the Son of God was, as it were, appearingat the bar of that assembly, craving justice against one who hadderogated from his essential glory, and blasphemed his name, at whichevery knee should bow. Yet such was the corruption and unfaithfulness ofthis church, that the blasphemer was dismissed without any adequatecensure passed upon him, and still continued in the character of aminister and member of this church.

Again, when Mr. Campbell, professor of church history at St. Andrews,was processed before the judicatories of this church, for maintaining ascheme of dangerous and most pernicious principles, which he publishedto the world, having a manifest tendency to subvert revealed religion,and expose the exercise of serious godliness, under the notion ofenthusiasm; to advance self-love, as the leading, principle and motivein all human actions whatever, and to destroy the self-sufficiency ofGod, making him a debtor to his creatures: yet though these, with anumber of God-dishonoring, creature-exalting, and soul-ruining errors,were notorious from his books, and were defended by him; the heretic,instead of being duly censured, was countenanced and carressed: wherebythis church has given a most deep wound to some of the most importanttruths of the Christian religion, and becomes chargeable with the guiltof all the errors maintained by that erroneous professor.

A third instance of this church's unfaithfulness, appears in the case ofMr. Glas, and others, who openly vented, by preaching and printing,independent schemes of church government, with some new improvements;attacked our Confession of faith and Covenants, unhinging all order andgovernment in the church, pulled up the hedge of discipline, tointroduce all errors in doctrine, and corruption in worship; and, atlast, openly renounced presbytery, name and thing (denying that there isany warrant for national churches under the New Testament), andasserted, that our martyrs, who suffered for adhering to the covenantedreformation, were so far in a delusion, with many other sectariantenets: for which, the church at first suspended, and then deposed someof them. But afterward, as if this church repented of doing so much infavor of presbytery, they were reponed, to the great danger of thechurch: for having discovered no remorse for their errors, theyimmediately employed all their parts to shake presbytery, by setting upindependent churches and ordaining several mechanics to be theirministers; and nothing done by the church for putting a stop to theseerrors, and for reviving and vindicating the precious truths they hadimpugned.

Likewise, when Mr. Wishart was staged for error vented by him in some ofhis sermons, with respect to the influence of arguments taken from theawe of future rewards and punishments, and other erroneous notions; hewas dismissed without any renunciation of his heterodox principles, andassoilzied by the judicatories of this church: and, as easy absolutionsencourage error, so no sooner was he assoilzied, but he had theassurance to recommend erroneous books, such as Doctor Whitchcot'ssermons, to his students. It is indeed no small evidence of theunsoundness of this church, when the heads of colleges are suffered,_impune_, to recommend such books for students and probationers to formupon.

Again, when professor Leechman was quarreled with for his deisticalsermon on prayer, by the presbytery of _Glasgow_, and afterward carriedbefore the assembly; yet although in all his sermons, he presents God asthe object of prayer, merely as our Creator, without any relation toChrist, as Mediator; but recommends to his hearers, as the onlyacceptable disposition of mind, an assured confidence in the goodnessand mercy of their Creator: not only has that Christless sermon beenvery much extolled, but the author dismissed from the assembly's bar insuch a manner, as if thereby he had merited their applause. From allwhich it sufficiently appears, that this church is unsound andunfaithful, in point of doctrine; especially, if it is considered, thatshe has been frequently addressed by representations, declaring thenecessity of an assertory net, affirming and ascertaining the precioustruths injured and impuned, and that publicly, by the above mentionederrors; and that a solemn warning should be emitted, discovering theevil and danger of them: yet that necessary duty has still beencontemned and disregarded.

The great truths of God, have, for many years, lain wounded and bleedingin our streets, trampled upon by their open and daring enemies; whilethis church has entirely forgotten and slighted the divine command, tocontend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. And thoughthe _Westminster_ Confession of Faith continues to be subscribed byintrants into the ministry (the covenants owned by the Reformed Churchof _Scotland_, as a part of her confession, being abstracted from theconfession of this present church), yet how little of that system andorder of doctrine is now taught? the generality having just as much ofChrist, and the doctrines of his cross, in most of their discourses, asis to be found in the writings of _Plato, Epictetus_ and _Seneca_, andthe rest of the Pagan moralists. So that this church appears orthodox,in little (or no) other sense than the church of _England_ is so, viz.,by subscribing the thirty-nine articles, which are _Calvinistical_ inthe doctrinal parts; while yet the _Arminian_ system of doctrine isgenerally received and taught by her clergy. Add to what is above, thatthis church maintains no suitable testimony against sins of all sorts,in persons of all stations; neither emits faithful warnings anent thesnares and dangers of the nation, nor full and free declarations ofpresent duty, as church judicatories, like faithful watchmen did informer times. But such faithfulness in God's matters is not now, alas!to be expected; seeing this church has made a formal concert, or mutualpaction, binding up one another from preaching against, and applyingtheir doctrines to the sins, corruptions and scandals of the times: see_Acts of Assem._ 16th, 17th, _anno_ 1712; _Act_ 6th, 1713; _Act_ 8th,1714; _Act_ 6th, 1715. The Presbytery cannot also here omit observing,and that with deep regret, that although the most damnable principles,which have a direct tendency to deny the being of God, and so topropagate opinionative atheism, to subvert all religion, to extol thepower of corrupt nature, and exalt Popery, as the best form of religion,to deny the subjection of the world to the providence of God, to destroyall distinction between virtue and vice, and consequently affirm, thatthere is no moral evil in the world, and to ridicule Christianity, asdestitute of divine authority, have been lately vented by _David Hume_,Esq.; and another designated by the name of _Sopho_: yet this church haspassed no suitable censure upon the authors of these impious andblasphemous principles, though they justly deserve the very highest: norhave they done anything to testify their dislike, or put an effectualstop to the spreading of these abominable tenets. The presbyterytherefore, as they declare their abhorrence of these, and the othererrors formerly mentioned, so testify against the church's notoriousunfaithfulness, in suffering these wretches to pass with impunity; andas being, on all these accounts noticed, unsound and corrupt, in thematter of doctrine, &c. It may also be here remarked, as an undoubtedevidence of the corruptness of the state, that, although there are civillaws presently in being, which declare the maintaining ofantitrinitarian, atheistical principles, to be not only criminal, butcapital; yet the civil powers in the nation have not so much regard toGod, and the Son of God, as to punish treason openly acted against them.

6. The presbytery testify against both church and state, for theirsinful associations with malignants: as declared enemies to thecovenanted interest have engrossed the civil power wholly to theirhands, since the public resolutions, that a door was opened for theiradmission; so such is the nature of the laws presently extant and inforce, that one cannot be admitted to any office, civil or military, butby swearing away all friendship to a covenanted reformation. And,moreover, all along since the late Revolution, the nations have been themost earnest pursuing after friendship with the grossest idolators; and,in express contradiction to the word of God, have confederated in theclosest alliance with God's declared enemies abroad; nay, have exhaustedtheir strength and substance, in maintaining the quarrel of such as havebeen remarkable for their hatred at, and persecution of the protestantinterest. The Revolution Church has also said a confederacy with such ashave, on all occasions, shewed a rooted enmity and hatred at reformationprinciples: which appears from their admitting such (noticed above) tobe office-bearers in the church: from their observing fasts, and prayingfor success to the allied armies, though almost wholly composed of such,and many of them oftentimes gross Popish idolaters: from their going inwith, and approving of the sinful incorporating union with _England_:from their acknowledging the civil power of church men as lawful: fromtheir joining in religious communion with Mr. _Whitefield_; and in manyother instances. Not to insist further in enumerating particulars, thePresbytery finally testify against church and state, for theirnegligence to suppress impiety, vice, and superstitious observance ofholy days, &c. The civil powers herein acting directly contrary to thenature and perverting the very ends of the magistrate's office, which isto be _custos et vindex utriusque tabulae_; the minister of God, arevenger, to execute wrath on him that doeth evil. Transgressors of thefirst table of the law may now sin openly with impunity; and, while thereligious observation of the sabbath is not regarded, the superstitiousobservation of holy-days, even in _Scotland_, is so much authorized,that on some of them the most considerable courts of justice aredischarged to sit. Stage-plays, masquerades, balls, assemblies, andpromiscuous dancings, the very nurseries of impiety and wickedness, arenot only tolerated, but even countenanced by law. And as these, withother evils, are permitted by the civil powers; so this church seems tohave lost all zeal against sin. No suitable endeavors are used toprevent the growth of atheism, idolatry and superstition: and thoughPrelacy, as well as Popery, is growing apace in the lands, and organspublicly used in that superstitious worship; yet no testimony is givenagainst them, but new modes introduced into the worship of God, forcarnal ends, as a gradual advance toward that superstition. Yea, sounconcerned about suppressing vice and extravagant vanity, &c, that notonly are the forementioned nurseries of sin frequented by ministers'children, but ministers themselves have countenanced them by theirpresence, to the great scandal of their office, and manifestencouragement of these seminaries of immorality. And notwithstandingthat by the late proclamation, the penal laws against vice and profanityseem to be revived (which is in itself so far good), yet this cannotsupersede or remove the ground of the Presbytery's testimony againstchurch and state complexly, on the above account, or even against thething itself, in the manner that it is gone about. For besides that,notwithstanding of all former endeavors of this kind, since theoverthrow of our scriptural and covenanted reformation, immorality andwickedness have still increased and overflowed all these banks; partly,because, after all their pretenses, the laws were not vigorously put inexecution (and as good, no law nor penalty, as no execution), andpartly, because these law-makers, being also themselves thelaw-breakers, have entrusted the execution to such as are generallyringleaders in a variety of gross immoralities; it is not likely, thatever God will countenance and bless such attempts, whereby (contrary toscripture and all good order) the ecclesiastical power is subjected tothe civil, and ministers made the bare inspectors of men's manners, andinformers to inferior judges, without having it in their power to obligesuch transgressors (if obstinate) to compear before church judicatories,and conform and submit to the laws of Christ's house. Nay, so far willGod be from approving such Erastian methods of reformation, that he willcertainly visit for this, among all our other iniquities, and in his owndue time make a breach upon us, because we sought him not in the dueorder. Wherefore, and for all these grounds, the Presbytery testifyagainst both church and state, as in their constitutions Erastian andanti-scriptural, including the substitution and acknowledgement ofanother head and governor over the church than Christ, as may besufficiently evident from proofs above adduced. And particularly,because the British united constitution is such as involves the wholeland, and all ranks therein, in the dreadful guilt of idolatry,communicating with idolators, apostasy, perjury, &c.[3] They declarethey can have no communion therewith; but that it is such an associationas that God's call to his people, concerning it, is, "Come out fromamong them. Be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing, and I willreceive you, saith the Lord."

* * * * *

SUPPLEMENT TO PART SECOND.

For as much as a good number of people in the north of _Ireland_ haveacceded, and submitted themselves to the Presbytery, and one of theirnumber is fixed among them as their proper pastor; the Presbyteryintended to have subjoined something by way of appendix to the aboveTestimony, with relation to the state of religion in that kingdom,especially with regard to the settlement of the presbyterian religionthere. But as diocesan Episcopacy is the religion there established bylaw, against which the Presbytery has declared and testified (as above)as an anti-scriptural, anti-covenanted and merely a human and politicalsettlement (whether considered abstractly or complexly with that in thekingdom of _Scotland_), there needs nothing be further said anent it.And as those called Presbyterians in _Ireland_, are equally enemies tothe true covenanted Presbyterian cause with those of the RevolutionChurch of _Scotland_; so the above testimony equally strikes againstthem with the other. There seems, however, to be this considerabledifference betwixt the Presbyterians in _Scotland_ and _Ireland, viz._,That although the settlements the same as to the matter of it, yet so itis not as to the form or manner of it, the Presbyterians in _Ireland_neither having, nor claiming any other security or foundation for theirdifferent mode of religious worship than the royal indulgence, ortoleration Act. And therefore, as the Presbytery did and do testifyagainst toleration, and toleration principles, disclaiming such ananti-scriptural shelter; they therein, of consequence, bear witness andtestimony against all such as do in these lands (where God has given hispeople a claim of another kind) professedly dwell under such a shadow.But besides, the Presbytery view them (complexly considered) as unworthyof their regard or notice in these papers, as to engaging in anyparticular or explicit testimony against them, in as much as they havedenuded themselves of almost any pretense to the Presbyterian name, bynot only disclaiming and opposing the true Presbyterian cause, buthaving also fallen from the belief and profession of the most importantand fundamental truths of Christianity; thereby plainly discoveringthemselves to be creatures of quite another species and spirit, than theministers of Jesus Christ, and friends to the blessed spiritualBridegroom; deserving rather to be termed a synagogue of _Libertines_, aclub of _Socinians, Arians, Pelagians_ &c., banded together againstChrist, and the doctrines of his cross than a synod of the ministers ofthe gospel. Therefore, as the presbytery testify and remonstrate againstthem, their toleration, or indulgence footing, on which they professedlystand, together with their poisonous jumble and medley of errors,commonly called _Newlight_, adopted, and with the greatest warmth anddiligence, spread and propagated by most of them, and connived at andtolerated by the rest and all their books or prints written by them, orothers of the like spirit with them in defense of these dangerous anddamnable tenets so they do hereby judicially warn and exhort all thepeople under their inspection there, to beware of such men, and suchbooks, however they may varnish over the doctrines they bring, with finewords fair speeches and pretenses, in order to deceive the hearts of thesimple; and this, as they would not incur the displeasure of a holy andjealous God, and have their souls defiled and destroyed by theseerror's. On the contrary to endeavor to have their minds andunderstandings enlightened with the knowledge of the truths of Christ,and mysteries of his gospel, and their hearts warmed with the love ofthem; so that being through grace established in the belief of thetruth, they may not "be as children tossed to and fro, and carried aboutwith every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunningcraftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" _Eph._ iv, 14, 15."But speaking the truth in love may grow up in all things unto him,which is the Head even Christ;" and striving to refrain and keepthemselves from every wicked, offensive and backsliding course, and tolive soberly, righteously and godly, blameless and harmless as the sonsof God, without rebuke, adorning the gospel of Christ with aconversation becoming the same; so shall they thereby glorify God, andtransmit a faithful testimony for the despised truths of Christ toposterity, that so there may be a seed to do service unto him in theselands, and make his name to be remembered through all generations.

PART III.

The principles of some parties, who have made the most speciousappearances for the Reformation, considered.--Particular grounds oftestimony against that body of ministers and people known by the name ofthe Secession, wherein their partiality and unfaithfulness in theirprofession of the covenanted testimony of the Church of Scotland isdiscovered in various instances,--their loose and immoral doctrine aboutcivil society and government--their corruption in worship, sinful termsof communion, &c., &c.

The Presbytery having in the preceding pages exhibited their testimonyagainst both church and state, as now established in these isles of thesea, and therein discovered the reasons, why they are obliged todisapprove of both, proceed, next, to take notice of some of the partiesthat have made the most specious appearances for reformation in thisland since the Revolution, of which that party commonly known by thename of the _Secession_, are not the least remarkable. It is vast pity,and it is with grief and lamentation, that the Presbytery findthemselves, in point of duty, obliged to lift up a testimony against theforementioned party; considering, that they have made a professedappearance under a judicial banner displayed for truth, and a covenantedwork of reformation, and have, in reality, showed much zeal in opposinga variety of errors in doctrine, corruption in discipline andgovernment, most prevalent in the national Church of _Scotland_; havecontributed to vindicate some of the most important truths and doctrinesof the Christian faith, that have been openly impugned in this day ofblasphemy, and may have been instrumental in turning many torighteousness, and reviving the exercise of practical godliness amongnot a few. But as _Paul_ withstood _Peter_ to the face, and testifiedagainst his dissimulation, though both of them apostles of our commonLord and Savior; so it still remains duty to testify against the mostgodly, and such as may have been very useful to the church in manyrespects, in so far as they have not showed themselves _earnestcontenders for the faith once delivered to the saints_, but have dealttreacherously with God in the concerns of his glory. It is thereforewith just regret they proceed to observe, that they are obliged, totestify against this party designated, first, by the title of _TheAssociate Presbytery_ (and then that of _The Associate Synod_)--and thatparticularly, for their error in doctrine, treachery in covenant,partiality and tyranny in discipline and government. It may at firstseem strange, to see a charge of error advanced against those who madethe countenancing of error in the judicatories of the establishedchurch, one principal ground of their secession therefrom. But by takinga narrower view of the principles and doctrines which they have roundlyand plainly asserted, and endeavored to justify in their printedpamphlets anent civil government, the reception and belief of which theyzealously inculcate upon their followers, it will appear, that theirscheme is so far from tending to promote the declarative glory of God,and the real good of human and religious society, or the church of God,which are the very ends of the divine ordinance of magistracy, that itis not only unscriptural, but anti-scriptural, contrary to the commonsentiments of mankind, and introductive of anarchy and confusion inevery nation, should it be thoroughly adopted, and therefore ought to betestified against. The sum of their principles anent civil magistracy,may be collected from these few passages, to be found in a printentitled, _Answers by the Associate Presbytery to reasons of dissent,&c.--Page_ 70. "This divine law, not only endows men in their presentstate with a natural inclination to civil society and government, but itpresents unto them an indispensable necessity of erecting the same into